Wireshark MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Expert info with decryption status or JSON error' and lists a FileNotFound error, which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, potential performance impacts, or how the verification process works.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Errors, Example) and uses minimal sentences. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the example shows an inconsistency (includes pcap_file parameter not documented in Args). Overall efficient but could be slightly more concise.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It documents only one parameter fully and hints at the other in the example. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, for a verification tool with file operations, more context about behavior and error conditions would be helpful.

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 only documents one parameter (keylog_file) in the Args section, completely missing pcap_file. The description of keylog_file as 'Path to SSL/TLS keylog file (SSLKEYLOGFILE format)' adds useful format information, but the undocumented pcap_file parameter leaves significant gaps in understanding required inputs.

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: 'Verify TLS decryption with keylog file.' This specifies the action (verify), target (TLS decryption), and mechanism (keylog file). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_get_packet_details by focusing specifically on SSL/TLS decryption verification rather than extraction or general 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?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions the keylog file requirement but doesn't explain when this verification is needed versus using other tools like wireshark_read_packets or wireshark_get_packet_details for general packet analysis. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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