analyze_capinfos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses input type restrictions, returns structured metadata, and notes file uploads are not supported. It could improve by mentioning read-only nature or network behavior for URLs, but overall effectively communicates behavior.

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 well-structured with sections (IMPORTANT, Args, Returns) and essential information front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive about 'NOT file content' but overall efficient and clear.

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?

Given one parameter and an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains input format, restrictions, and return structure fully, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema only defines `pcap_file` as a string. The description adds significant meaning: it must be a path or URL, not content, with examples. This fully compensates for schema 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 clearly states the tool returns metadata from a PCAP file, similar to Wireshark's capinfos. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that analyze specific protocols, making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and strong instructions on input format (file path or URL, not content). It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context and sibling list imply boundaries.

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