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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns 'Response time statistics or JSON error' and lists a 'FileNotFound' error, which adds some context about failure modes. However, it doesn't describe what the statistics include (e.g., min, max, average), whether it processes the entire file or samples, or any performance implications like processing time 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structured sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example) make it easy to scan. However, the '[SRT]' prefix is cryptic and unnecessary, and the example could be more informative by showing sample output.

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 should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to clarify behavioral aspects like what 'response time statistics' entail or prerequisites. The error information is helpful but minimal for a tool analyzing network data.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining 'protocol' as 'Application protocol - 'http', 'dns', 'smb', etc.' and implies 'pcap_file' is a file path through the example and error mention. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—e.g., it doesn't specify file format requirements for 'pcap_file' or whether protocol names are case-sensitive.

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 calculates 'Service Response Time statistics' for network protocols, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints' by focusing on response time metrics rather than other statistical analyses. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools in the 'wireshark_stats_' family.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'wireshark_stats_conversations' or 'wireshark_stats_endpoints' that might offer overlapping or complementary functionality. There's no context about when response time analysis is preferred over other statistical methods.

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