expert_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists content categories but does not state whether this is a read-only query, whether a live capture is required, or how results are returned. It does not contradict annotations, but the operational behavior remains mostly implicit.

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?

Nine words with no filler; the core concept and contents are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes at the cost of elaboration handled in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained required parameter, an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass or what shape the result will take. The tool is structurally simple, but the description leaves the input contract and result format unstated.

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 sole parameter 'capture' is only defined by its schema type (string), with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a capture is or how to specify it (ID, filename, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies a specific Wireshark feature ('expert info') and enumerates the categories it exposes (retransmissions, resets, malformed packets, warnings). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like capture_info.

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 given on when to use expert_info over capture_info, packet_summary, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The description only implies a tool for expert-level diagnostics.

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