export_packets_csv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds minor technical detail (tshark flags) but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral context (e.g., file handling, error cases).

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?

Description is concise (one short paragraph plus bullet-like Args). Every sentence adds value: purpose, technical context, and parameter details. No fluff, though could be more structured with examples.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and no output schema, description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., file download), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., tshark required). Suitable but not comprehensive.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section adds meaning: explains filepath, fields (with default), display_filter, and separator (with default). This compensates for schema gaps and clarifies parameter roles.

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 'Export packet fields from a PCAP as CSV with proper headers using tshark -E flags.' It specifies the action (export), resource (PCAP), output format (CSV), and technical context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_packets_json.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling export_packets_json exists, but description lacks comparison or context for choosing CSV over JSON. Only parameter details are provided, not usage context.

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