wireshark_export_objects

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating file creation. The description adds the protocol options but does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., overwrite behavior, whether extraction preserves metadata). The description is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 very concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded with an '[Export]' label. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and protocol list. Slightly more structure could improve readability.

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 3 required parameters, a destructive hint, and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and output format. It feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It only partially clarifies 'protocol' by listing values, but 'pcap_file' and 'dest_dir' remain completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 'Extract embedded files from traffic' with specific protocol options (http, smb, tftp, imf, dicom). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_dns_queries, which focus on different data types.

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 lists acceptable protocols, giving some usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wireshark_follow_stream or wireshark_extract_http_requests. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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