Inspect one target flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description's focus on 'evidence' aligns without adding much safety-relevant context. It does not disclose potential performance costs, required permissions, or interpretation details, which would exceed what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resources. It is concise and free of filler, though the heavy jargon ('Mihomo', 'nftables', 'conntrack') may hinder quick comprehension for unfamiliar agents.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and complex multi-source correlation, the one-sentence description lacks essential context. It does not describe what the returned evidence looks like, how to interpret the correlation, or how to use parameters like 'detail' or 'protocol'.

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 description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It mentions 'client and destination' (client_ip, destination_ip) but fails to clarify port, detail, domain, protocol, or client_ipv6. This is insufficient given the 7-parameter schema with enums and defaults.

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's function: 'Correlate live Mihomo, routing, aggregated nftables, and conntrack evidence for a client and destination.' It uses a specific verb ('correlate') and resource list, and the focus on a client/destination differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_config_state or trace_dns.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a targeted investigation of a flow, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools like capture_flow or trace_dns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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