analyze_map_operations

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of explaining behavior. It states what is extracted and the returned output (operation frequency table, per-IMSI summary) and gives the protocol stack context. It implies a read-only analysis but doesn't explicitly say so; still, it provides more behavioral context than most descriptions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, use case, protocol stack, parameter list, and return summary. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 specialized SS7 traffic analysis tool, the description provides protocol stack, use cases, parameters, and return summary. An output schema exists, so return details are covered. Minor gap: it doesn't mention behavior for non-MAP traffic or error conditions, but overall it's quite complete.

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 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains file_path as a PCAP path, display_filter as an optional extra filter, and top_n with its default. Each parameter is covered, though the filter syntax could be more precise.

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 explicitly states 'Analyse GSM MAP (Mobile Application Part) operations from SS7 traffic' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists extracted entities (operation codes, IMSI, MSISDN) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_dns by focusing on MAP protocol.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Useful for telecom network auditing and SS7 security analysis' and gives a typical protocol stack (SCTP->M3UA->SCCP->TCAP->MAP), which helps identify when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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