wireshark_editcap_split

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., creation of multiple files, overwrite behavior), required permissions, or error conditions beyond a generic 'success or error'. The description lacks sufficient operational context.

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 short but front-loaded with the main action. However, it sacrifices valuable details for brevity. A bit more context (e.g., the output format, splitting logic) would improve usefulness without making it verbose.

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 that there is no output schema provided (but context says 'Has output schema: true', yet the schema is not shown), the description's mention of return values is minimal. The complexity of splitting files (potential for many outputs, naming convention) is not addressed. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%). The description lists the arguments but adds no extra meaning beyond their names. For example, it does not clarify that `packets_per_file` and `seconds_per_file` default to 0 (which may imply a different splitting strategy) or that they are mutually exclusive.

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 that the tool splits a capture file into multiple files using editcap. The verb 'split' and resource 'capture' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling editcap tools like deduplicate or time_shift, which also modify 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 like wireshark_editcap_trim or wireshark_editcap_deduplicate. The description does not explain the use case for splitting by packets versus seconds, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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