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 mentions extraction and returns/outputs, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it modifies source files, rate limits, or what 'Success message' entails. The 'Errors' section adds some behavioral context (e.g., FileNotFound, InvalidParameter), but overall disclosure is minimal for a tool that processes files.

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 sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'protocol' details repeated in Args and Errors). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the bracketed '[Export]' is slightly awkward.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps (e.g., 'pcap_file' semantics unclear). An output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't needed. However, for a file-processing tool with multiple siblings, more context on use cases and limitations would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'protocol' with enum-like values and 'dest_dir' purpose, but omits 'pcap_file' entirely in the Args section (though mentioned in Errors and Example). This partial coverage leaves one parameter undocumented, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 as 'Extract embedded files from traffic' with the specific action 'Export', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_http_requests by focusing on embedded files rather than credentials or HTTP requests specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like wireshark_get_file_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like wireshark_extract_fields or wireshark_get_file_info that might overlap in functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The example shows usage but doesn't explain rationale.

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