sequence_diagram

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

No annotations available, and the description does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or performance implications. It implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 relatively concise (two sentences plus list) and front-loaded with purpose. The list of type options is clear, but the initial sentence could be reworded for flow.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description should detail return structure and parameter roles more fully. The brief mention of 'time-ordered node and flow entries' is insufficient for a tool producing complex data.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the 'type' enum values (tcp, icmp, etc.). However, 'alias' and 'display_filter' are not elaborated, leaving gaps.

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 outputs sequence diagram data for visualizing packet exchanges, equivalent to Wireshark's Flow Graph. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iograph or protocol_hierarchy.

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 on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., iograph, packet_detail). The type parameter is hinted but not explicitly recommended.

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