packet_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a bounded output size (<2KB JSON) and, importantly, a coverage limitation — that SMB, Kerberos, and SSH are flagged as unparsed rather than analyzed. It stops short of stating performance/capture-size limits for large inputs or confirming the read-only nature explicitly.

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 dense sentences with zero wasted words, and the key scoping facts (L3–L7, <2KB, reconnaissance) are front-loaded before the content enumeration.

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 read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the return contents (totals, talkers, per-protocol volumes), the size bound, and the notable limitation on unparsed protocols. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (base64 input and the local-only filePath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no incremental parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (triage summary over packet data) with explicit scope 'L3–L7' and enumerates the contents: packet totals, talkers, DNS/HTTP/TLS volumes, and warnings. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are targeted extractors, positioning it as the high-level overview rather than a focused dissection.

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?

Calls itself 'fast reconnaissance,' which clearly signals when it should be reached for first, before drilling into specific extractors. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a specific protocol extraction is the goal), leaving that routing implicit.

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