field_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the implementation ('Uses tshark -G fields') and the absence of a session requirement, which is useful behavioral context. It also mentions pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and every clause adds information: what is listed, optional filtering, pagination, and the underlying command/session requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the key usage points: listing fields, prefix filter, pagination, and no-session requirement. Minor details like ordering or match semantics are absent but not critical for a list operation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description explains that 'prefix' filters the list and that pagination is supported, implying 'limit' and 'cursor' are pagination controls. However, it does not clarify the exact meaning of 'cursor', whether 'limit' defaults or caps results, or how prefix matching works. It partially compensates for lack of schema descriptions but leaves gaps.

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 a specific action ('List available protocol fields') with an optional filter ('by prefix'). It distinguishes from siblings like field_get (which presumably retrieves a single field) and filter_complete (completion of filters). The resource is explicit: 'protocol fields'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list fields with optional prefix filtering, with pagination support, and explicitly notes 'no session required', implying it can be used independently of an analysis session. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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