get_packets_by_time_range

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, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that timestamps are Unix epoch seconds matching Wireshark's frame.time_epoch, that the range is inclusive, that results are summaries rather than full packet data, and that a truncation flag may indicate limited results. This goes well beyond a simple 'retrieve packets' statement.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a useful Wireshark compatibility note, an alternative-tool pointer, and a compact Args/Returns layout. Every sentence contributes either semantic precision or invocation guidance; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the 0% schema description coverage, the description provides all necessary context: parameter meanings, time units, inclusivity, return summary contents, and the alternative to use for full packet dissection. An output schema exists, so the prose return description is sufficient. The tool can be selected and invoked correctly based solely on this description.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains capture_id as a currently loaded capture, start_time and end_time as inclusive Unix epoch times, and limit with a 1–1000 range. These semantics are not present in the input schema, making the description essential for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve packets whose Unix timestamps fall within an inclusive range.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools by scoping to time-based retrieval and explicitly contrasts with dissect_packet for full decoded fields. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 states when to use the tool (time-range packet retrieval) and provides an explicit alternative: 'call dissect_packet when full decoded fields are required for an individual frame.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule for choosing between this tool and its closest alternative.

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