export_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that files are reconstructed and written to output_dir, that output_dir must exist, and that returns a list with sizes or an error. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the core side effects are clear.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the tool's purpose, then a use-case sentence, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and a key prerequisite (output_dir exists). Given the tool has an output schema, return details are sufficient. It lacks edge-case info like overwrite behavior or error handling specifics, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 does so fully: file_path is 'Path to the PCAP file', protocol is 'Protocol layer to extract from — one of: http, smb, tftp, imf, dicom', and output_dir is 'Directory where extracted files will be written (must exist)'. This adds crucial detail and enum values.

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 transferred files from a PCAP using tshark's --export-objects and writes them to a directory. It names specific protocols (http, smb, tftp, imf, dicom), distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze packets or extract fields.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is useful for forensic recovery of HTTP downloads, SMB transfers, FTP, and TFTP, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is solid.

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