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 adds some context beyond the basic function by listing potential errors (FileNotFound, ToolNotFound) and mentioning the external dependency on 'mergecap', which helps the agent anticipate failure modes. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether the operation is destructive to input files, performance implications for large files, or output format details.

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 efficiently organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function, followed by organized details.

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 (file merging operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core operation, parameters, return values, error cases, and provides an example. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details about the merging process itself (e.g., timestamp handling, duplicate packet treatment).

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for both parameters: 'output_file' as the 'Path for merged output file' and 'input_files' as a 'Comma-separated list of input file paths'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., file extensions, path validity).

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 ('merge') and resource ('multiple capture files into one'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wireshark_capture or wireshark_read_packets that handle different operations on PCAP files. The concise opening sentence directly communicates the core functionality.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose distinguishes it from siblings, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to similar tools (e.g., whether it's for combining captures from different sources). The description lacks usage context beyond the basic function.

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