wireshark_editcap_split

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to modify data. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it mentions splitting into multiple files but does not explain whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, or behavior when both packets_per_file and seconds_per_file are set.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks necessary detail; brevity here comes at the expense of completeness.

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 tool's complexity of splitting a capture file into multiple files, the absence of output schema and parameter descriptions leaves an agent without sufficient context to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding conflict resolution when both splitting criteria are provided.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond their names. While 'by packet count or time interval' loosely hints at packets_per_file and seconds_per_file, it fails to clarify default behavior, precedence when both are non-zero, or naming conventions for output files.

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 'split' and the resource 'capture' (packet capture files), and specifies the two modes: by packet count or time interval. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge, trim, deduplicate, and time_shift.

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 splitting versus alternatives such as merge_pcaps, editcap_trim, or editcap_deduplicate. There is no indication of which mode (packet count vs. time interval) is appropriate for different scenarios.

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