packet_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains optional parameters and their effects (e.g., include_bytes adds raw bytes, ref_frame for delta-time). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, or what operations it performs (e.g., no indication of side effects or data modification). The disclosure is partial.

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: a single introductory sentence followed by parameter explanations in a clear structure. It avoids unnecessary words. However, the parameter list could be formatted more cleanly (e.g., inline with the intro) but is still highly readable and efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide complete context. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., JSON tree structure), what fields are included in the 'full protocol tree,' and how parameters like ref_frame and prev_frame affect the output. The absence of behavioral or output information leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the tool description must compensate. It explains 4 of 6 parameters (include_bytes, include_hidden, ref_frame, prev_frame) beyond their types and defaults, adding semantic meaning (e.g., 'add raw bytes per layer'). The required parameters alias and frame_number are not described, but their purpose is inferable from context. Overall, the description adds significant value over 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full protocol tree for one frame.' This specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (protocol tree for a single frame), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_packets (which lists frames) and follow_stream (which reassembles streams).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with similar tools (e.g., extract_fields for specific fields). The parameter explanations imply use cases, but explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use information is missing.

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