kali_network_tshark_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'capture and analysis' and 'advanced filtering' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires elevated privileges, what happens during capture (e.g., network disruption), output characteristics, error conditions, or rate limits. For a network capture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

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?

For a network packet capture tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, privilege requirements, output structure, or error handling. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the contextual depth needed for safe and effective use of this potentially privileged network 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'advanced filtering' which relates to the 'filter' parameter and 'multiple output formats' which relates to 'output_format', but provides no additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose as 'packet capture and analysis' using Wireshark CLI, specifying the core action and resource. It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on packet analysis rather than scanning or exploitation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar 'kali_network_tcpdump_capture' tool.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'advanced filtering and multiple output formats' which implies capabilities, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to the similar tcpdump_capture sibling tool. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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