wireshark_extract_frames

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

The description discloses that it creates a new pcap file, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds value by specifying that it extracts ranges (implying reading from original and writing new), which is beyond the annotation's binary destructive flag.

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 extremely succinct: one short sentence and a format example. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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 simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, annotations covering destructive hint), the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's basic usage. However, it lacks details about return values, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., existing pcap file).

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 description adds meaning for the 'frame_ranges' parameter by providing an example format ('1-10 15 20-30'), which is not clear from the schema alone. Other parameters (pcap_file, output_file) are self-explanatory from their names, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 frame ranges to a new pcap, with a clear example of the range format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wireshark_editcap_split by focusing on frame number ranges rather than time or split criteria.

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 explains what the tool does and provides a format example, but does not explicitly guide when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., editcap_split for splitting by time or packets). Usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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