tshark_follow_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Shows the full conversation' without explaining output format, side effects, or limitations (e.g., only one stream at a time). It does not mention that the tool reconstructs the stream by reassembling packets, nor does it discuss permissions or resource usage. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences and 15 words – highly concise. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose immediately.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It tells the core function but omits details like what the output looks like (e.g., plaintext conversation) and how to handle multiple streams. There's a minor inconsistency: the description lists HTTP but the schema includes TLS as a protocol option. This gap reduces completeness for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, it does not clarify the difference between format options ('ascii', 'hex', 'raw') or how streamIndex works. The schema already provides enum values and descriptions, so the description is not required to add more, but it does not compensate for any ambiguity.

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 core function: 'Follow and reconstruct a TCP, UDP, or HTTP stream from a pcap file. Shows the full conversation.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like tshark_filter (which filters packets) and tshark_read_pcap (which reads raw packets).

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 implies usage after capturing a pcap file but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tshark_filter or tshark_stats. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or directed advice.

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