Parse Pcap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it details the processing pipeline, return of full frame sequences plus partial truncated frames as diagnostic info, automatic protocol detection, and the optional scapy dependency. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with the core action and pipeline, then methodically covers return values, default behavior, dependency, and performance. Each sentence adds information 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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the processing flow, return semantics, dependencies, and parameter defaults. The only minor omission is naming the sibling parse_frame for single-frame cases, but that's not required for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fill the gap. It explains the protocol parameter (default auto-detection by the protocol with the most complete frames) and characterizes the path as a Wireshark pcap export. While it doesn't explicitly map each parameter name, it provides necessary context for both.

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?

Describes a specific verb+resource: parsing a Wireshark-exported pcap. The pipeline of aggregating by TCP stream, slicing by protocol, and per-frame parse_auto clearly distinguishes it from single-frame siblings like parse_frame.

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?

Explicitly notes the batch scenario is far more efficient than per-frame frame_hex, giving a clear when-to-use. However, it does not name an alternative for single-frame cases (e.g., parse_frame) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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