diff_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at an analysis/inference operation and mentions 'byte roles and evidence frames', but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what it requires as input state, whether it is expensive, or how failures are reported.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with three undocumented parameters, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with an unfamiliar domain, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description omits prerequisites, input meaning, and behavioral traits an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% across all three parameters (device, capture, markers), and the description never mentions any of them. 'Per action' loosely gestures at the action/marker concept, but no format, default, or selection semantics are conveyed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Diff packets per action') plus a secondary outcome ('infer the protocol'), which is distinguishable from siblings like mark_action or replay_packet. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope limits, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a capture must exist and actions must have been marked via mark_action), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow position from the name alone.

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