filter_packets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that results are summaries, that a normalized filter and match count are returned, and that full dissection requires dissect_packet. It could additionally state explicitly that this operation is read-only, but the filter/find framing and returned summary format make the behavior reasonably clear.

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 organized with a clear opening sentence, useful filter examples, an alternatives note, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every part earns its place; the examples are illustrative rather than padding, and the alternative tool reference is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 three simple parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the filter syntax, parameter constraints, return contents, and relationship to dissect_packet. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters, and it does. capture_id is defined as a currently loaded capture, filter_expression is specified as a non-empty Wireshark display filter, and limit is constrained to 1-1000 with a default of 100. This leaves no ambiguity about how to fill the 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 verb and resource: 'Find packets using a Wireshark/TShark display-filter expression.' It also distinguishes itself from dissect_packet by clarifying that it returns summaries rather than complete field trees. This gives an agent a clear, non-tautological purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 gives concrete usage context, including examples of valid display filters and an explicit warning that the expression is not a BPF/libpcap capture filter. It also tells the agent when to use dissect_packet instead, which is strong guidance for selecting among siblings.

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