get_packet_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it uses column fields for output, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits or data size constraints. Provides marginal extra context.

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?

Description is concise: 3 sentences plus an Args list. Purpose is front-loaded, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple 3-param tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. The Wireshark analogy hints at return format. However, in context of many siblings, a brief note on when to prefer this over other summary tools would improve completeness.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in properties), but the description explains all three parameters in an Args list, including default for count and optional nature of display_filter. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description states 'Get a quick packet summary similar to Wireshark's packet list view', clearly specifying the verb (Get), resource (packet summary), and distinguishing it from sibling analysis/capture tools by referencing a common UI metaphor.

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?

The description implies usage for quick browsing via the Wireshark analogy but does not explicitly state when to use over siblings like analyze_pcap_file or when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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