get_packets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the pagination behavior, the return format (packets and content), and that it is a read operation. It does not disclose any potential side effects or authorization needs, but the transparency is adequate for a read 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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage context, and return format. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary function.

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 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers pagination and return format. However, it does not describe the metadata fields or the variety of content_format options. It is fairly complete but could be more thorough.

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 add meaning. It explains the purpose of starting_from for scrolling, but skips details on stream_id, page_size, content_format, and max_bytes_per_packet. The description adds some value but not enough for all 5 parameters.

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 reads a page of packets from a stream and distinguishes it from the sibling get_stream by specifying when to use it (large streams or scrolling past first page). The verb 'read' and resource 'packets' are specific, and the scope is explained.

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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of get_stream when a stream is too large or need to scroll past the first page, and explains pagination using starting_from. It does not provide explicit exclusions or elaborate on when not to use, but the context is clear.

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