tshark_query

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter meanings, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, potential resource usage, error handling, or output format. The 'arbitrary' nature of the query could imply risk, but this is not addressed.

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 concise and well-structured: a single action statement followed by a clear parameter list with examples. Every line adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 description covers the parameters well but lacks context about output structure, performance implications, or failure modes. Since there's no output schema, the agent is left without information on what the tool returns, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 description thoroughly explains each parameter beyond the schema (which only has titles/types). It provides field names, examples for display_filter and fields, and clarifies max_lines default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Run an arbitrary tshark query on a PCAP file.' It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (PCAP file), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcap_protocols or pcap_extract by emphasizing 'arbitrary' tshark query capability.

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 implies usage (custom tshark queries) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclude cases. Examples of filters and fields help infer appropriate usage, but there's no direct comparison with sibling tools or mention of when not to use.

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