tm_analyse_capture

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it reads plain text only, rejects certain paths with security rationale, returns per-endpoint analysis, and does not persist state. This is comprehensive.

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 informative but slightly verbose, with code formatting and a reference to a module docstring. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured, though could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers input constraints, return value (per-endpoint analysis), side effects (none), and next steps. No gaps remain.

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 has no description (0% coverage), but the description adds extensive meaning: file format (.jsonl), allowed location under $TM_MCP_CAPTURE_ROOT, unsupported compressed forms, and path validation rules. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 analyses a JSONL traffic capture and returns a proposed profile structure. It uses specific verbs ('analyse', 'returns') and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with tm_import_capture.

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 specifies that the capture_path must be a .jsonl file under a specific root, and that compressed forms, symlinks, path traversal are not supported. It suggests pairing with tm_import_capture for profile creation, but could be more explicit about alternative tools.

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