scan_capture_for_threats

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., file size limits, threat feed availability). Acceptable but minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus argument list. Front-loaded with main action, no wasted words.

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?

Does not describe return format or error cases. With no output schema, missing information on what the tool returns (list of IPs, threats found?). Adequate for simple tool but could be more 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?

Description adds meaning beyond schema: specifies filepath expects PCAP/PCAPNG format, providers are comma-separated with example values (urlhaus, abuseipdb). Schema has 0% coverage, so description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states it extracts IPs from a PCAP file and checks against threat feeds. Distinct from siblings like check_ip_threat_intel (single IP) and analyze_pcap_file (general analysis).

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?

Implies usage when needing to scan a PCAP for threat intelligence, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like check_ip_threat_intel or other capture analysis tools.

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