wireshark_extract_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that output is TSV with a header row and that limit/offset count lines including that header, which is real behavioral context. It does not discuss filtering effects or return size.

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?

It is a single tight sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and TSV output before the parameter notes. Marginal efficiency, though the 'limit/offset count lines including the header' clause is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or rich annotations, this description is too thin. Key parameters (pcap_file, display_filter) go unexplained, and there is no guidance on scope versus the many sibling extractors.

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, yet it only clarifies 'fields' (comma-separated) and limit/offset semantics. The important 'display_filter' parameter and the required 'pcap_file' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Extract fields') and output format ('as TSV'), which is clearly distinct from specialized extractors like wireshark_extract_http_requests. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling, so the agent must infer positioning on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With many overlapping siblings (wireshark_get_packet_list, wireshark_read_packets, wireshark_extract_frames), the agent gets no help deciding between this generic field extractor and the specialized extractors. Only the limit/offset counting behavior hints at usage.

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