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 what the tool does (security scanning for credentials), what it returns (summary or JSON error), and specific error conditions (FileNotFound, DependencyError). It doesn't mention performance characteristics like speed or resource usage, but covers core behavior adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detection specifics, return values, errors, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words. The bullet-like formatting enhances readability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of purpose, behavior, and errors. The main gap is insufficient parameter semantics (0% schema coverage with minimal compensation). For a security-focused tool with one parameter, it's mostly complete but could better explain the pcap_file requirements.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it mentions the pcap_file parameter in the example, it doesn't explain what format the file should be in, size limitations, or path requirements. The example shows usage but lacks semantic details about the parameter beyond its existence, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 with specific verbs ('scan for', 'detects') and resources ('plaintext credentials in traffic'), listing exact protocol types (HTTP Basic Auth, FTP passwords, Telnet login attempts). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_extract_dns_queries or wireshark_extract_http_requests by focusing specifically on credential extraction rather than other traffic analysis.

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 context through the '[Security]' tag and the types of credentials detected, suggesting it's for security analysis of network traffic. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_search_content or wireshark_check_threats, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond needing a pcap file.

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