get_packets_between_frames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: inclusive boundaries, compact-summary output, limit cap (1-1000), and a returned truncation flag. This goes well beyond the tool name and clearly conveys the read-oriented, non-dissecting behavior.

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 compact and well structured: a one-sentence purpose, a behavioral note, then Args and Returns lists. No fluff, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 4-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers all parameters, the inclusive behavior, the compact-summary rationale, the truncation flag, and the returned fields. An agent has enough information to invoke this correctly and interpret where fine-grained dissection should happen next.

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 define every parameter itself. It does: capture_id as a currently loaded capture, start/end as inclusive frame numbers, and limit with a 1-1000 range, adding real semantics the schema's type/title fields do not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-scope statement: 'Retrieve packets in an inclusive Wireshark frame-number range.' It further clarifies it returns compact packet summaries rather than full dissections, which separates it from dissection-oriented siblings without decoding every field.

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 clear context on when this tool is useful: to retrieve an inclusive range and get compact summaries so a caller can then select frames for detailed dissection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest possible guidance.

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