dissect_packet

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that an absent frame returns found=false rather than an errorholics, which is an important non-obvious behavior. It also summarizes the return shape, though it does not mention side effects or error cases for invalid capture_id.

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 opening sentence is direct and front-loaded, followed by a compact Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence earns its place: frame-number semantics, discovery guidance, absent-frame behavior, and return summary. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has only two required parametersholics, and both are given enough explanatory detail for correct invocation. The description also disambiguates the found=false case and summarizes the return structure. It does not detail invalid-input error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and simplicity of the call.

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 schema only provides names and types, so all semantic weight falls on the description. It adds meaningfully by defining capture_id as 'ID of a currently loaded capture' and packet_number as 'Positive, one-based Wireshark frame number.' This is exactly the additional information an agent needs to construct valid arguments.

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 action and resource: 'Return the decoded protocol layers and fields for one frame.' It clearly conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling get_packet_by_number, but the emphasis on decoded layers implies that distinction.

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 provides helpful usage context: it explains the one-based Wireshark numbering and suggests using filter_packets or validation frames to discover relevant numbers. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer dissect_packet over sibling tools like get_packet_by_number, nor does it state any exclusions.

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