pcap_summary

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output fields, not whether the operation is read-only, requires a loaded pcap, or has performance implications.

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 a single line, which is concise. However, it front-loads a confusing phrase ('Combined status + analyse') and lacks structured details. It could be clearer without much extra length.

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 single parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description should fully explain the tool. It lists output fields but omits that the pcap must be loaded via alias and what prerequisites exist.

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 one required parameter 'alias' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not reference the parameter or clarify its meaning, providing no value beyond the 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 lists fields like filename, size, frame count, etc., indicating it provides a summary of a pcap. However, it uses 'Combined status + analyse' which may confuse since those are not sibling tool names. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated with a verb+resource structure.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., list_pcaps, packet_detail). There is no mention of prerequisites or alternative tools.

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