rawshark_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Run rawshark,' implying execution but not side effects, destructiveness, or permissions. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, leaving the return behavior unexplained.

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 sentence with only 12 words, making it very concise. It follows a clear structure: verb + resource + qualifiers. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, which is a trade-off.

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, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what rawshark does, valid encapsulation types, the format of fields, or any output details. An agent cannot properly understand when or how to use this tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'explicit encapsulation and fields,' which vaguely hints at the 'encapsulation' and 'fields' parameters but adds no syntax, types, or constraints. The display_filter and raw_path are completely unaddressed.

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 it runs rawshark over raw pcap records with explicit encapsulation and fields. This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like packets_fields or capture_start, which also deal with packet fields and captures.

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. Given many sibling tools for packet capture and analysis, the description offers no context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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