Wireshark MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Returns: Matching packets or JSON error' and 'Errors: FileNotFound', which adds some behavioral context like error handling. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, or any rate limits, which are significant gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sections for Args, Returns, Errors, and Example, making it easy to parse. It's relatively concise, with each sentence adding value (e.g., explaining parameters, error cases). However, the example includes 'traffic.pcap' which isn't listed in Args, causing minor confusion, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides basic context like parameter meanings and error handling. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but gaps remain: no usage guidelines, incomplete parameter coverage (missing 'pcap_file' in Args), and lack of behavioral details (e.g., read/write nature). This makes it minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description lists 'match_pattern', 'search_type', and 'limit' in the Args section, explaining their purposes (e.g., 'Pattern to search for', 'Search method'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it omits 'pcap_file' from the Args list (though mentioned in the example), leaving one parameter partially undocumented, preventing a higher score.

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 action ('Find packets containing specific data') and resource ('packets'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wireshark_filter_save' or 'wireshark_read_packets', which might also involve packet searching or filtering, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available for packet analysis (e.g., 'wireshark_filter_save', 'wireshark_extract_fields'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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