Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it downloads and caches threat feeds from abuse.ch, returns a threat analysis summary or JSON error, and lists specific error conditions (FileNotFound, DependencyError, NetworkError). This covers operational aspects, error handling, and data sources, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Sections for 'Returns', 'Errors', and 'Example' are well-structured, but the '[Security]' tag is redundant with the threat-checking context. Most sentences earn their place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 (security analysis with external feeds), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, errors, and an example, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., network access) or performance aspects like caching behavior, leaving some gaps for a security tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'pcap_file' is a captured file for IP extraction and threat checking, and provides an example ('suspicious.pcap'). This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic string type, though it doesn't detail format constraints like file extensions.

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's purpose: checking captured IPs against URLhaus threat intelligence. It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('captured IPs'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on threat analysis rather than capture, extraction, or statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wireshark_list_ips' which also deals with IPs.

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 implies usage when threat analysis of IPs from a PCAP file is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wireshark_list_ips' or other security-related tools. It mentions downloading and caching a threat feed, suggesting it's for proactive threat checking, but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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