find_tcp_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description itself must signal behavioral traits. The verb 'Find' clearly indicates a read-only inspection, and enumerating the anomaly types tells the agent what kind of evidence to expect. It does not state side effects or prerequisites, but the non-mutating nature is apparent from the wording.

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 short sentences, with the tool's function front-loaded and the usage context immediately following. No redundant or vague wording.

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 output schema presumably covers return values, and the description provides clear purpose and usage. However, the unaddressed meaning of 'path' leaves a gap for correct invocation: an agent cannot be certain what path type or format to supply, which is a meaningful omission for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The schema defines a single 'path' string with no description (0% schema description coverage), and the description never mentions this parameter. The agent is left to infer that 'path' likely refers to a packet capture file, but the description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 ('Find') and names four concrete anomaly types (retransmission, reordering, zero-window, duplicate-ACK), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on DNS, HTTP, RTT, handshakes, and other network aspects. The scope is instantly clear.

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 second sentence gives explicit context: 'Use this for slow or unreliable transfers.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but it provides a clear conditional use case that helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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