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 'Returns: Endpoint statistics table or JSON error' and lists errors like 'FileNotFound' and 'InvalidParameter', which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, or how it handles large files, which are important for a tool processing network data.

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 structured with sections like 'Args', 'Returns', 'Errors', and 'Example', which is organized. However, it includes redundant information (e.g., the example repeats the tool name) and could be more front-loaded; the core purpose is clear but not maximally efficient. Every sentence adds some value, but there's room for improvement in brevity.

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 (processing network data with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, parameters partially, returns, and errors, but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and schema coverage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an 'Args' section explaining 'type: Protocol type' with examples, but it doesn't mention the 'pcap_file' parameter at all in the description text. This leaves one of the two parameters undocumented, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'List all endpoints and their traffic stats.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('endpoints and their traffic stats'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wireshark_list_ips' or 'wireshark_stats_conversations', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions an 'Args' section for parameters but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or compare to sibling tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_list_ips'. This lack of usage context leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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