reconstruct_tcap_dialogue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the grouping behavior, inclusion of MAP op codes 'when present', and the return structure (per-dialogue message sequence with timestamps, message types, and MAP ops). It does not cover edge cases or failure behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 purpose statement, protocol stack line, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 complex tool like SS7 TCAP reconstruction, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values. The output schema exists and the Returns section adds useful detail. It lacks usage examples or caveats about malformed captures, but is generally 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the docstring must compensate. It explains all three parameters: file_path, display_filter (with a concrete example), and max_dialogues (with its default). This adds real meaning 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 'Reconstruct SS7 TCAP signaling dialogues from a PCAP file' – a specific verb and resource. It further explains the grouping by transaction IDs and inclusion of MAP operation codes, which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_map_operations or extract_fields.

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 clearly implies the intended use case (reconstructing TCAP dialogues from PCAP files) and gives protocol stack context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (when not to use), stopping 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.