wireshark_extract_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the output format (TSV, 'Tabular') and the field parameter format (comma-separated). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (limit, offset) or the effect of display_filter, though these are present in the input schema. The description goes beyond annotations but could still be improved.

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 at one sentence plus an example, front-loading the key purpose and format. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It covers output format and field specification but omits critical details about file selection, pagination (limit/offset), and filtering (display_filter). An agent would lack context for correct invocation, especially alongside tools like wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_search_packets.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains the 'fields' parameter with an example. The other four parameters ('pcap_file', 'limit', 'offset', 'display_filter') receive no explanation, leaving the agent uncertain about their purpose or defaults.

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 extracts fields as TSV, with a specific verb ('Extract'), resource ('fields'), and output format ('TSV'). It provides an example of comma-separated field syntax, which differentiates it from sibling tools that extract specific data types (e.g., credentials, DNS queries) or return full packets.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_get_packet_list. It does not mention alternatives or provide context for preferring this over other extract or packet tools. The usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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