file_tshark_export

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about output formats (fields, json, ek) and clarifies that it exports structured data, which implies read-only transformation of input without destroying the source. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it doesn't mention behavior like default output mode or packet limits, but given annotations already cover safety/idempotency, the description adds reasonable value.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose and provides a clear pointer to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 8 parameters, no enums, and no schema description coverage. The description is minimal but the output schema exists (context signal says 'Has output schema: true'), so return values are presumably documented there. The description explains the core purpose and differentiates from a sibling, but lacks deeper guidance on when to use structured export vs other tools beyond the one alternative. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap, so not a perfect 5 but above the 3 minimum.

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 carries the burden of parameter semantics. The description names 'fields' and 'format' as examples but does not explain parameters like decode_as, read_filter, display_filter, output_mode, max_packets. However, the format field is partially clarified by listing 'fields, json, or ek' as format options. Since the schema has 8 parameters and the description only hints at 2, the baseline 3 is appropriate but it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% 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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'packet data in structured format', and lists the specific structured formats (fields, json, ek). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool file_write_filtered_capture by explicitly directing users to that alternative for pcap writing, which differentiates it well.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs an alternative: it says 'For writing filtered pcap files, use file_write_filtered_capture instead.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the specific sibling tool to use instead, fulfilling the highest bar for usage guidelines.

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