pcap_detect_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as 'read-only file analysis,' indicating it does not modify data, and specifies the output structure ('Returns scanners, top_scanned_ports, and a hint'), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and a behavioral note, all in two efficient sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (analyzing PCAPs for port scans) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, output structure, and read-only behavior. However, it could improve by mentioning limitations (e.g., file size constraints) or error cases, but it covers the essentials well for an analysis tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pcap_path' clearly documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'PCAP file' without further details on format or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('detect port scans by analyzing SYN packets without ACK') and resources ('PCAP file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pcap_dns_analysis or pcap_extract_credentials by focusing on port scan detection rather than other analyses.

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 implies usage for analyzing PCAP files to detect port scans, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcap_overview or pcap_follow_stream, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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