file_slice

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, reducing the need for safety disclosure. The description adds the selection mechanism (ranges or time window) but doesn't explain output behavior (e.g., overwrite semantics, interaction between ranges and time, effects of keep_selected or snaplen). This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with a clear action verb and no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core function.

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 7 parameters and a complex selection semantics (ranges, time windows, keep_selected, snaplen), but the description covers only the basic idea. It lacks details on input/output file behavior, range formats, time parsing, and return values. Given the 0% schema coverage and no per-parameter docs, this is insufficient for a full understanding.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It names 'packet number ranges' and 'time window', which map to packet_ranges and start_time/end_time, but leaves snaplen and keep_selected unexplained, and doesn't clarify the format for ranges (e.g., '1-5,8' strings). The description adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and names the resource ('packets from a capture file') plus the selection criteria ('by packet number ranges or time window'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_merge, file_dedup, and file_retime, which address different operations on capture files.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or mention any sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose. This is a plain statement of function with no decision context.

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