pm_expert_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the type of information but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or computationally intensive. The agent is left to assume it is safe, but this is not explicit.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical details. It is not verbose, but it could be expanded without being overly long.

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 low parameter count and existence of an output schema, the description should still provide enough context for safe and effective use. It lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral disclosures, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the file_path or severity parameters. It does not explain what file_path expects (e.g., path to a pcap file) or the possible values for severity (e.g., 'error', 'warning'). The agent cannot infer valid 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 states 'Wireshark expert information (errors, warnings, notes, chats)', which clearly identifies the resource and the types of information. The verb is implied (get/retrieve), and it differentiates from siblings like pm_tcp_anomalies by being generic. However, it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., pm_tcp_anomalies, pm_protocol_hierarchy). No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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