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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool is deprecated (implying reduced support), can return very large/complex JSON (performance implications), and includes error handling details (specific error types like FileNotFound and ExecutionError). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or destructive effects.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with deprecation warning and key behavioral notes, then provides clear sections for Args, Returns, Errors, and Example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded with the most important guidance first.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return values, error handling, and includes an example. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately doesn't need to explain return values in detail beyond the high-level JSON structure.

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 (titles only, no descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations: `pcap_file` as 'Path to capture file', `limit` as 'Maximum packets to return (default: 100)', `offset` as 'Skip first N packets (pagination)', and `display_filter` with a Wireshark syntax example. This adds substantial meaning 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 reads packet data in JSON format, specifying the verb 'read' and resource 'packet data'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (`wireshark_get_packet_list` and `wireshark_get_packet_details`) for efficient analysis, showing awareness of sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance: it marks the tool as deprecated, warns about large JSON output, and recommends specific alternatives (`wireshark_get_packet_list` and `wireshark_get_packet_details`) for efficient analysis. This clearly indicates when not to use this tool and what to use instead.

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