filter_packets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it filters from a pcap file and returns matching packets. Does not mention read-only nature, permissions, error handling, or performance implications. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Reasonably concise with a clear structure: summary sentence, usage note, then bulleted args list. No extraneous text. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, description states return value structure. Covers all 7 parameters with defaults. Could mention file size limits or dependencies, but sufficient for an agent to understand basic functionality.

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%, but description adds meaning with brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Filter by source IP address', 'Maximum packets to scan'). Compensates well for lack of schema descriptions, though could be more precise (e.g., IP format, protocol values).

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?

Clearly states it filters packets from a pcap file based on criteria. Verb 'filter' and 'extract' specify action. However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like custom_scapy_filter or analyze_dns_traffic, missing opportunity for distinction.

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?

Provides basic guidance: 'Use this tool to extract specific packets matching your criteria.' Mentions AND logic for combining filters. Does not specify when not to use, or alternatives among siblings. Could be more explicit about prerequisites or limitations.

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