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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool saves to a new file (implying a write operation) and lists error cases ('FileNotFound', 'ExecutionError'), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing output files, requires specific permissions, has performance implications for large files, or provides progress feedback. The error descriptions are minimal.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, Errors, and Example. Every sentence serves a specific purpose without redundancy, and the example provides concrete usage.

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 does a decent job explaining parameters and errors. However, as a file-processing tool with write operations, it lacks details about behavioral implications (e.g., file overwriting, resource usage). The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 provides clear parameter explanations: 'input_file: Source pcap file', 'output_file: Destination pcap file', and 'display_filter: Wireshark display filter (e.g., "http.request.method == POST")'. The example filter syntax adds valuable context beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't cover parameter constraints like file path formats or filter validation rules.

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: 'Filter packets from a pcap and save to a new file.' This specifies the verb ('filter packets'), resource ('pcap'), and outcome ('save to a new file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wireshark_read_packets' or 'wireshark_search_content', which might also involve filtering operations.

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 many sibling tools available (e.g., 'wireshark_search_content', 'wireshark_read_packets'), there's no indication of when this specific filtering-and-saving operation is preferred over other analysis or extraction methods.

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