follow_udp_stream

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that the tool reconstructs a UDP conversation and allows output format selection (ascii, hex, raw), which gives concrete context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a minimal parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 scalar parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the core function and parameter meanings adequately. It is missing details about the return format (e.g., does it return the stream as a string or save to a file?), but for a basic stream following tool, the information is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing all three parameters and providing brief explanations: filepath (path to PCAP/PCAPNG file), stream_index (0-based index), and output_format (ascii, hex, or raw). However, it does not explain the return value or behavior in detail, falling short of the baseline expected for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reconstructs a UDP conversation from a PCAP file. It uses a specific verb ('reconstruct') and resource ('UDP conversation'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like follow_tcp_stream and other PCAP analysis tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes follow_tcp_stream, but the description does not explicitly recommend this for UDP streams or mention that TCP streams should use the sibling tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.