Mitm Export Flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'secrets redacted (R4)'. The verb 'export' also implies a non-mutating read operation. It doesn't discuss permissions or side effects, but there is no annotation 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action and format list come first, the source options second, and the redaction caveat last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-oriented export tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, source modes, formats, and the key redaction behavior. Minor gaps such as the meaning of 'R4' and precedence when both session_id and flow_path are supplied prevent a 5.

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?

The description maps session vs file sources to the session_id/flow_path parameters and enumerates format choices. However, it doesn't explain the required flow_id or preserve_original_ip, and schema description coverage is low, so it only partially compensates for the uncovered parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — "Export a captured flow to an external format" — and names the exact formats and the two source modes. This clearly distinguishes mitm_export_flow from the other mitm capture/manipulation siblings.

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?

It gives concrete selection context: use it on an active session's dump or a standalone .mitm file, which maps to session_id versus flow_path. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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