Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as returning a 'tabular list' with specific columns and mentions the Wireshark analogy, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it loads the entire file into memory, performance characteristics, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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 (Summary, Args, Returns, Example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words while maintaining comprehensive parameter documentation.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from mentioning error conditions or performance considerations.

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 fully. It provides excellent parameter semantics: clear explanations for all 4 parameters including the purpose of 'pcap_file', default values for 'limit' and 'offset', and a concrete example for 'display_filter'. The example format and usage context add significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get a summary list of packets (like Wireshark's top pane).' It uses specific verbs ('get', 'scan', 'drill down') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on packet list retrieval rather than capture, analysis, or extraction functions.

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 usage context: 'Use this first to scan traffic before drilling down.' This implies it's an initial exploration tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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