summarize_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, high-level summarization operation and lists what the tool reports, but it doesn't disclose whether there are side effects, performance considerations on large captures, or how 'top talkers' is defined. There is no contradiction, but behavioral detail is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It places the directive first and packs the key output categories into a compact list. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and the starting-point context well. It could add a bit more guidance on what to do next (e.g., use a sibling tool for deeper analysis), but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has one required parameter, 'path', with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what 'path' refers to. The context ('capture investigation') hints that it is a path to a capture file, but the ambiguity remains: file path vs directory, supported formats, local vs remote. The description adds no value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 role with a specific verb and resource: 'Start every capture investigation here' establishes it as an entry-point summarizer. It enumerates concrete outputs (file metadata, protocols, top IP talkers), which distinguishes it from the more specialized sibling tools like inspect_dns_queries or show_protocol_hierarchy.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Start every capture investigation here.' This is a clear usage directive. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool would not be appropriate, leaving some room for inference about when to switch to a specific sibling tool.

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