pcap_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It describes the return value (packet count, duration, protocols, top talkers) and mentions default max_packets. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like memory usage or file size constraints.

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?

Well-structured with a main description, usage note, and docstring-style Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, parameters, and return content. Could be enhanced by mentioning constraints like file format support or error handling, but it's largely complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: file_path as path to pcap file, and max_packets with default value of 100000. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 gets a high-level summary of a pcap file. Specifies what the summary includes (protocol breakdown, top talkers, basic statistics), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific analyses like DNS traffic or TCP issues.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to quickly understand pcap contents without reading every packet. Does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative siblings, but the use case is well-defined.

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