Wireshark MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool 'returns complete JSON structure of the packet', it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics for large files, error handling for invalid frame numbers, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 clear sections (Detail, Args, Returns, Example), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The example provides concrete usage without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), 2 parameters with good semantic explanation in the description, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about read/write nature, performance, or error handling, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 compensates well by explaining both parameters: pcap_file as 'Path to capture file' and frame_number as 'The packet number (from wireshark_get_packet_list)'. It provides practical context about where frame_number comes from, adding value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 verb ('Get full details') and resource ('for a SINGLE packet'), with specific analogy to Wireshark's bottom pane. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool wireshark_get_packet_list by specifying this is for a single packet rather than a list.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('for a SINGLE packet') and references the sibling tool wireshark_get_packet_list as the source for frame_number. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like wireshark_extract_fields for specific data extraction.

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