wireshark_merge_pcaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions possible errors (FileNotFound, ToolNotFound) and return types. But it lacks details like whether original files are preserved, file format compatibility, or performance impacts.

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 concise, structured with sections, includes an example, and is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple merge tool with a clear output (success/error), the description covers purpose, parameters, errors, and an example. It is complete given the tool's low complexity, though it could mention file size limitations.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section explains both parameters: output_file as path for merged output, input_files as comma-separated list, adding meaning beyond names.

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 'Merge multiple capture files into one' with a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like wireshark_editcap_split or wireshark_editcap_deduplicate, this tool is uniquely identified for merging.

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 implicitly indicates usage for merging multiple pcap files, and the error list hints at conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like editcap tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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