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 discloses that the tool uses capinfos, returns detailed metadata or JSON error, and lists specific error conditions (FileNotFound, ToolNotFound). However, it does not mention performance aspects like execution time or whether it's read-only/destructive, though 'Get' suggests read-only.

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 implementation details, returns, errors, and an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, tool used, errors, and an example, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavioral nuances like file size limits, which could be relevant for a metadata tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'pcap_file' is a capture file and provides an example ('traffic.pcap'). It adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal title ('Pcap File'), though it could specify file format requirements or path handling.

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 specific action ('Get detailed metadata about a capture file') and resource ('capture file'), distinguishing it from siblings like wireshark_capture (capturing) or wireshark_get_packet_details (packet-level info). It specifies the tool used (capinfos) and the type of metadata returned (file type, packet count, duration, size).

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 for obtaining file-level metadata rather than packet-level analysis (e.g., vs. wireshark_get_packet_list), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy or provide exclusions. It mentions errors for missing files or tools, giving some context.

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