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 discloses that the tool returns 'Tree-structured protocol statistics or JSON error' and lists a 'FileNotFound' error, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Tree-structured' entails. This provides basic transparency but misses key operational traits.

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, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return format, error, and example. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by grouping related information more clearly.

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 covers return values), no annotations, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return format, a key error, and provides an example. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper parameter details, which are minor gaps in this context.

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 mentions the parameter 'pcap_file' in the example and error section, implying it's a file path, but does not explain its format, constraints, or semantics beyond existence. The example 'traffic.pcap' adds minimal context. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this offers some value but is insufficient for full understanding.

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: 'Get Protocol Hierarchy Statistics' and 'Shows distribution of protocols in the capture.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Protocol Hierarchy Statistics'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints', which also provide statistics but for different aspects. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 what the tool does but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints'. Without such context, users must infer usage based on tool names alone.

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