Wireshark MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Returns: Tabular text with HTTP request data or JSON error' and includes an example, which adds some behavioral context (output format and error handling). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., file access), or performance implications. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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. It uses bullet points for 'Returns' and 'Example,' making it structured. However, the '[Convenience]' tag is vague and could be omitted for better clarity.

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 complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and provides an example, but lacks detailed parameter explanations and behavioral context. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain for a tool with no annotations.

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 only mentions parameters indirectly in the example ('wireshark_extract_http_requests("web_traffic.pcap", limit=50)'), implying 'pcap_file' and 'limit' but without explaining their semantics (e.g., what 'pcap_file' expects, what 'limit' controls). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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: 'Extract HTTP request details (method, URI, host)' with 'Pre-configured field extraction for HTTP analysis.' This specifies the verb (extract), resource (HTTP request details), and scope (pre-configured for HTTP analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'wireshark_extract_fields' or 'wireshark_get_packet_details' that might also handle HTTP data.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions '[Convenience]' and 'Pre-configured field extraction for HTTP analysis,' which implies a specific use case but doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wireshark_extract_fields' or 'wireshark_search_content.' No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.

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