follow_stream

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns client/server addresses and base64 payload chunks with direction, and caps payload lists via max_payloads. However, it does not mention any authorization needs or side effects.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, return details, and payload limit. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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, the description explains return structure (addrs, payload chunks, direction) and the cap feature. However, it does not explain the alias or protocol parameters, leaving gaps for an agent to understand all inputs. Slightly incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 description adds meaning for display_filter (example) and max_payloads (cap, set to 0 for no cap), but alias and protocol are not described, leaving them to the schema alone. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but misses two 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 reassembles a stream with a specific verb ('Reassemble'), and the display_filter example distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_packets or conversations that return individual packets or conversations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tap or extract_fields. The description implies use for stream analysis but does not state when not to use it or mention preconditions.

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