list_packets

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation but does not confirm safety, performance implications, or side effects. Lacks detail on return behavior beyond paging.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Uses examples and bullet-style explanation for parameters. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Missing critical context: alias likely refers to a loaded pcap but unexused; skip/limit paging parameters not described; no output schema; no annotations to compensate. Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so incomplete.

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?

Description explains display_filter, columns, and refs with useful context (Wireshark syntax, example, purpose). However, alias (required), skip, and limit are not explained despite low schema coverage (0%). Covers 50% of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it pages through packets using sharkd frames, which is a list operation. It is distinct from packet_detail which provides detail for a single packet. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like extract_fields or 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a pcap must be loaded via list_pcaps/load_pcap) or when to avoid.

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