packet_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination defaults and context-limit enforcement, but omits what it returns per record, whether the operation is read-only (implied but unstated), and how the mutually exclusive 'input' vs 'filePath' sources behave when both or neither are supplied.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The limit recital mildly duplicates the schema, but the phrasing is efficient overall.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero required parameters, the description should clarify that a source (input or filePath) must be provided. It also says nothing about the return record shape or pagination continuation, leaving real gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly, including limit bounds and offset semantics. The description adds the rationale for the limit (context protection) but no new syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('packet summary records'), and source ('from a PCAP capture'), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'packet_summary', leaving ambiguity about which list/summary tool to choose.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like packet_summary or packet_filter_export, and no prerequisites. The only guidance is about pagination limits, which is operational detail rather than tool selection.

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