Mitm Filter Flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the filtering operation and source, but does not state whether this is read-only, whether it affects the active session, what happens when neither source is provided, or any side effects. The behavior remains largely implicit.

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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. The core operation and the key distinguishing detail (source modes) are front-loaded, and every clause 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?

The tool has a nested parameter structureched and no annotations, so the description is the main guidance. It covers the essential filtering behavior and source selection, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, it lacks guidance on limits, source precedence, and how this differs from other flow-related siblings, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining the expression family and the two sources, which helps interpret expression, flow_path, and session_id. However, it does not explain limit, mutual exclusivity, precedence, or default behavior when both sources are absent, leaving gaps.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Filter flows using mitmproxy FlowFilter expressions', and clarifies the source domains (dump file or active session). It is clear enough to distinguish this as a filtering operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like mitmweb_get_flows.

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 gives useful context about the two input sources: '.mitm dump file' or 'active session', which maps to flow_path and session_id. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions like whether a session must be running.

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