tshark_filter

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency responsibility but only states basic operation. It does not disclose performance implications, file requirements (beyond parameter descriptions), or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to assess side effects.

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 succinct with two sentences, no redundant phrases, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to understanding the core function without excess.

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 omits context about output format options, field extraction behavior, and handling of large files. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of multiple parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns or edge cases.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing parameter context.

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 applies a display filter to a pcap file and returns matching packets, specifying its purpose and utility. It distinguishes from siblings like tshark_stats (statistics) and tshark_capture (capturing), but could more explicitly differentiate from tshark_read_pcap or tshark_follow_stream.

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 provides only a vague phrase 'Useful for extracting specific traffic' without clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tshark_follow_stream or tshark_stats. No prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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