Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Tabular text with DNS queries or JSON error') which is helpful, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts with large files, error conditions beyond JSON errors, or how the 'limit' parameter affects output. For a tool processing network data with 2 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by return format and example. The '[Convenience]' tag adds context without verbosity. However, the example could be more informative by showing parameter names explicitly, and the description could be slightly more front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, network data processing), no annotations, but presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but misses parameter explanations and sufficient behavioral context. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but other gaps remain significant for effective tool selection.

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 for both parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings. The example shows 'pcap_file' usage but doesn't explain what this parameter expects (file path, format requirements). The 'limit' parameter isn't mentioned at all. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters semantically unclear.

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 DNS query details (name, type)' with the specific verb 'extract' and resource 'DNS queries'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials and wireshark_extract_http_requests by specifying DNS focus. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from wireshark_extract_fields which could also extract DNS data, preventing a perfect score.

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 implied usage context with 'Pre-configured for DNS analysis' and mentions a specific file type requirement in the example. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_get_packet_details or wireshark_search_content for DNS-related tasks, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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