pcap_follow_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is 'Read-only' (non-destructive) and returns specific data (stream_content, stream_num, protocol). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, file size limits, or whether it requires specific PCAP formats. The transparency is adequate but incomplete for a file analysis tool.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and safety. The first sentence states purpose and return values, the second adds behavioral context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating return values from purpose.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description provides basic completeness. It covers purpose, returns, and safety, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of stream_content), error conditions, or performance expectations. For a read-only analysis tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need.

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%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that stream_num relates to 'TCP stream number' (though the tool handles UDP/HTTP too). It doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Follow a TCP/UDP/HTTP stream in a PCAP' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from some siblings like pcap_detect_scan or pcap_dns_analysis by focusing on stream following rather than detection or analysis of specific protocols. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pcap_http_objects which might overlap in HTTP stream handling.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Read-only file analysis' which implies safety but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcap_http_objects for HTTP-specific extraction or pcap_extract_credentials for credential-focused analysis. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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