run_tshark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that arguments are validated against a whitelist, which is useful safety context, but it does not explain the nature of the whitelist, failure behavior, output format, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The whitelist sentence is valuable and earns its place, and the overall structure is front-loaded and clear.

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?

Despite having a clear schema, the tool lacks annotations and an output schema. The description is underspecified: it does not explain the whitelist contents, edge cases, security implications, or typical usage scenarios. For a general command execution tool, this is a significant gap.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates that arguments are passed to tshark.

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 it runs a tshark command with specified arguments, using a specific verb and resource. It adds a key qualifier about whitelist validation, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like run_display_filter or capture_packets, which are more specialized.

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 specialized sibling tools. There are no examples, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, so an agent might not know if this is the right choice for a given analysis task.

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