tshark

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: it can read pcap files or capture live, and it outputs 'detailed packet summaries with protocol-specific fields.' However, it does not mention operational traits such as requiring root/privileges for live capture, the blocking nature of captures until count is reached, or potential high-volume output — gaps that matter for a network-capture 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 with no waste: definition, use cases/comparison, capability, and output format are all covered. The most identifying content ('Command-line Wireshark', live vs file capture) is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a tool with 5 fully documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what it does, when to use it, how it compares to a sibling, input modes, and output shape. It falls slightly short by not mentioning operational caveats like privilege requirements or capture termination behavior, but the combination of description and schema is otherwise reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description mentions 'extracting specific protocol fields' and 'display filters', which loosely ties to opts/filt, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It neither hurts nor significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'captures and deeply analyzes network traffic with full protocol dissection' — and frames the tool as 'Command-line Wireshark', which immediately signals its identity. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling ('Superior to tcpdump for protocol decoding and display filters'), so an agent can separate it from tcpdump without opening either schema.

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 lists when to use the tool: 'Use for detailed traffic analysis, extracting specific protocol fields, or analyzing pcap files.' It also names the primary alternative (tcpdump) and states the advantage, giving clear routing guidance. This is not merely implied; it is direct and actionable.

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