filter_func

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to clarify whether 'filter' implies a destructive operation or simple querying, what the return format contains, or performance characteristics (e.g., regex execution limits). It does not disclose whether filtered results are removed from source or merely returned.

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 11-word sentence that is efficiently structured with the verb front-loaded. However, it is arguably underspecified for a 6-parameter tool with complex filtering capabilities, leaving insufficient semantic weight to guide proper invocation without heavy reliance on the schema.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters including regex filtering, boolean retention flags, and historical/live data modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description remains incomplete. It fails to explain the filtering logic, prerequisites (e.g., existing capture requirements), or behavioral implications of the keep_request/keep_response parameters.

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 67% (4/6 parameters). While capture_seconds, host_contains, http_method, and keyword_regex are well-documented in the schema, 'keep_request' and 'keep_response' lack descriptions. The tool description provides no compensation for these gaps, nor does it explain the interaction between filtering criteria (AND/OR logic) or the impact of the boolean flags.

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 filters traffic from either a 'fixed capture window' or 'latest saved history package', providing specific verb (filter) and resource (traffic). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'query_recorded_traffic' or 'analyze_recorded_traffic' which may perform similar operations.

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 implies usage context by specifying data sources (capture window vs history package), suggesting when to use it based on data availability. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, leaving ambiguity regarding when to choose this over 'query_recorded_traffic' or other analysis tools.

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