follow_tls_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses the dependency on an external keylog file, how to generate it, and the return format (ASCII plaintext). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens on keylog mismatch, but the disclosed information is substantial for a read-only 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 well-structured with sections for purpose, keylog generation, args, and returns. Every part earns its place; the keylog examples are slightly verbose but necessary for usability. It is front-loaded with the main 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?

The tool has moderate complexity (TLS decryption with external keylog) and an output schema exists. The description covers prerequisites, parameters, and return type. It lacks discussion of edge cases (e.g., unsupported TLS versions), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the 'Args' section explains the meaning of each parameter, including the default for stream_index. This adds clear value beyond the minimal schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'follow and reconstruct a decrypted TLS stream as plaintext.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'follow_stream' by specifying TLS decryption and the need for a keylog file.

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 states the key prerequisite (TLS key log file) and provides concrete instructions for generating one across multiple browsers/runtimes. It implies when to use this tool (when you have TLS traffic and a keylog) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.