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. It discloses that the tool performs anomaly detection and returns expert analysis results or JSON errors, including a specific FileNotFound error. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes 'expert analysis' (e.g., format, depth). This is adequate but has gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. Each section (Detects, Returns, Errors, Example) is structured clearly, though the Example could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more cohesive.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, detection targets, return types, and an error case, but lacks parameter details and behavioral context like performance or limitations. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance is needed for effective use.

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 only mentions 'pcap_file' in the Errors and Example sections without explaining what it is (e.g., file path, format requirements) or adding meaning beyond the schema's basic string type. This fails to adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs 'automatic anomaly detection' on PCAP files, specifying it detects retransmissions, errors, warnings, and protocol issues. This is a specific verb (detect) + resource (PCAP file anomalies), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wireshark_check_threats or wireshark_stats_conversations, which may also analyze PCAP data.

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 like wireshark_check_threats or other stats tools. It mentions what it detects but not the context or scenarios where this expert analysis is preferred over other analysis methods available in the sibling tools.

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