follow_stream

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format ('Reconstructed stream content as ASCII text') and the keylog_file caveat, indicating a limitation. However, it does not mention behavior for non-ASCII or binary stream content, which could be relevant. Still, it provides more transparency than many tools.

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 statement, Args section, and Returns section. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy. The format is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't detailed in the description, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, return type, and the TLS alternative. It is slightly incomplete regarding edge cases like invalid file paths or protocol handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: file_path, protocol (including the sctp option), stream_index with default, and keylog_file with its alternate-tool direction. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific action 'Follow and reconstruct a TCP or UDP stream', naming the tool's resource type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool follow_tls_stream by directing users to that tool for decrypted TLS content, demonstrating clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use an alternative tool: 'When provided, use follow_tls_stream instead for decrypted TLS content.' This clearly communicates the boundary of the current tool and directs the agent to the correct sibling. Also implies this tool does not decrypt TLS, setting expectations.

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