Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('List of interfaces with index, name, and status') and includes an example, which adds some value. However, it doesn't cover critical behaviors like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., no interfaces available), or performance implications (e.g., network scanning delays). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, follows with a clear returns section, and includes a minimal example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete for basic use. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks context about when to use it among siblings and behavioral details like error handling, which could be important in a network toolset. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on output and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't contradict or confuse this aspect.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available network interfaces for capture'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wireshark_list_ips' or 'wireshark_get_packet_list', which also list network-related items, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific listing tool.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Wireshark running), context for capture setup, or comparisons to siblings like 'wireshark_list_ips' for IP-focused listings. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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