Wireshark MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions returns 'conversation statistics table or JSON error' and lists two error types, but doesn't describe what 'conversation statistics' includes, whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or how results are formatted. The error information is helpful but insufficient for a 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 reasonably concise with clear sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example). However, the omission of the 'pcap_file' parameter in the Args section creates a structural gap. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, but the parameter documentation is incomplete.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the tool lacks critical behavioral context and has incomplete parameter documentation. The error information adds some value, but overall coverage is inadequate for a network analysis tool.

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 but does so inadequately. It documents the 'type' parameter with protocol options but completely omits the required 'pcap_file' parameter from the description text. The example shows both parameters, but the formal description section fails to document the primary input file parameter.

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 shows 'communication pairs and their stats' for network protocols, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wireshark_stats_endpoints' or 'wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy' by focusing on conversations between pairs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 like 'wireshark_stats_endpoints' or other stats tools. The description only states what it does without indicating appropriate contexts or exclusions. The example shows usage but doesn't explain rationale.

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