wireshark_extract_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions output format (tabular text or JSON error) and possible errors (FileNotFound, ExecutionError), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any permissions needed. This is adequate but could 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 well-structured with sections for purpose, arguments, returns, errors, and an example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 (5 parameters, 2 required), the description covers usage, parameter semantics, error types, and output format. The output schema exists, so the return description is sufficient. The example further clarifies usage.

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 compensate. It explains the format for 'fields' (comma-separated), describes 'display_filter' as optional, and mentions defaults for 'limit' and 'offset'. 'pcap_file' is not explicitly described, but its role is clear from context. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 specific fields as comma/tab-separated data. It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('fields'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like wireshark_get_packet_details which return full packet details.

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 implies usage for extracting tabular data from pcap files, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with specialized extraction tools like wireshark_extract_http_requests. However, the example and parameter explanations provide clear context.

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