analyze_capinfos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the input requirement (path/URL, not content) and the return structure ('structured dictionary containing PCAP metadata'). It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only metadata tool this is sufficient.

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 an important note, args, and returns sections. Each sentence adds value: the main purpose, the input format warning, examples, and the output details. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input format, expected output, and even example paths. There are no gaps that would prevent correct use.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'pcap_file: Path to local PCAP file or HTTP URL to remote PCAP file (NOT file content - must be a path or URL)' and even gives example formats. This fully compensates for 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 states 'Return metadata from a PCAP file, similar to Wireshark's capinfos utility.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_dns_packets which analyze packet types rather than file metadata.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'This tool expects a FILE PATH or URL, not file content' and 'File uploads are NOT supported - save the file locally first.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use it.

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