Mitmweb Get 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. It signals a read-only retrieval and names the session requirement, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, default body omission, server-side filtering, error behavior, or what happens when the session is invalid. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral detail is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: the action, the resource, the protocol coverage, and the runtime context. This is an example of appropriately concise writing.

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 moderate complexity with a required session_id, pagination, a body toggle, and a server-side filter expression, but the description does not address any of these. Even with an output schema available, the description leaves out how to obtain a session_id, what defaults apply, and when to use related tools like mitmweb_get_flow_detail or mitm_filter_flows.

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 reported as 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter-level meaning for session_id, limit, offset, include_body, or filter_expression. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, so an agent gets little help understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('captured flows'), and adds useful protocol scope (HTTP/WebSocket/TCP/UDP) plus the precondition 'from a running mitmweb session.' It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like mitmweb_get_flow_detail or mitm_filter_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'from a running mitmweb session' weakly implies a precondition, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over mitmweb_get_flow_detail, mitm_filter_flows, or other siblings.

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