arkime_connections

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, safe operation. The description adds value by explaining the output format (nodes and links) and parameter behavior, exceeding annotation coverage.

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 concise, with a one-line summary, a context line, and a bullet list of parameters. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter details, and output nature (nodes and links) adequately for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and usage (e.g., epoch seconds for time fields).

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 builds a source/destination connection graph, using specific verbs and outputs (nodes and links). It distinguishes from siblings like arkime_sessions by focusing on graph construction.

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 provides use cases (tracing lateral movement, mapping hosts) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. It implies when to use this tool over others.

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