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 provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions potential errors ('FileNotFound: pcap_file does not exist') and return types ('Time-series traffic statistics or JSON error'), but doesn't describe what the statistics include, how data is aggregated, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations for large files.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example) and uses minimal words to convey basic information. However, the purpose statement 'Traffic volume over time' could be more specific, and some sections are overly brief.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the essential purpose and parameters at a high level but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, usage context, and parameter constraints that would be needed for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds some value beyond the 0% schema description coverage by explaining 'interval: Time interval in seconds (default: 1)' and implying pcap_file is a required input through the example. However, it doesn't explain what format pcap_file should be in, valid ranges for interval, or what the interval actually represents in the analysis context.

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: 'Traffic volume over time' which indicates it generates time-series statistics from network traffic data. It specifies the resource (traffic data) and verb (analyze/graph), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints' which also provide statistical analysis.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this I/O graph analysis is appropriate compared to other statistical tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints', nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage.

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