Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool creates output files, has configurable duration/packet limits, supports BPF filtering, and can return errors. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, resource consumption, or what 'unlimited' capture means in practice, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The example is practical and demonstrates typical usage without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description does well: it explains parameters thoroughly, mentions output (success message with file path) and errors. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. Minor gaps remain in behavioral transparency (e.g., permissions).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation: it explains what each parameter means, gives examples (e.g., 'BPF filter (e.g. "host 192.168.1.1 and port 80")'), clarifies default behaviors ('0 = unlimited'), and references dependencies ('from list_interfaces'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Capture live network traffic') and resource ('network traffic'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wireshark_read_packets (reads existing files) or wireshark_list_interfaces (lists interfaces). The verb 'capture' is precise and differentiates from analysis/extraction tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (capturing live traffic) and implicitly distinguishes it from tools like wireshark_read_packets (for existing files). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, missing full explicit guidance.

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