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 tabular output format and error conditions (FileNotFound, ExecutionError), which adds some value. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, memory usage with large files, or what happens when fields don't exist in the pcap. The description provides basic error information but misses critical operational context.

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) and uses bullet-like formatting. Each sentence earns its place by providing specific information. The opening statement is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor inefficiency exists in repeating 'Tabular' in both the opening and Returns section, and the pcap_file parameter inconsistency between Args header and example.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job covering parameter semantics and basic errors. However, for a tool that processes network packet data (potentially large files), it lacks important context about performance, memory usage, supported field types, or Wireshark version compatibility. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but operational constraints should be addressed more thoroughly.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully documents all 5 parameters (pcap_file, fields, display_filter, limit, offset) with clear examples and explanations. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, explaining field format, filter syntax, and pagination behavior. The only gap is that pcap_file appears in the example but not in the Args section header.

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 specific fields as comma/tab-separated data' with the opening '[Tabular]' tag, which indicates both the action (extract) and the resource (fields from network data). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_http_requests by focusing on arbitrary field extraction rather than specific content types. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the pcap_file parameter which is central to the operation.

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. With 21 sibling tools including wireshark_extract_credentials, wireshark_extract_dns_queries, and wireshark_extract_http_requests, there's no indication of when this general field extraction tool is preferable to those specialized extraction tools. The example shows usage but doesn't provide comparative context.

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