ws_runtime_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific categories of information returned, particularly 'allowed file roots,' which is a behavioral constraint not implied by the annotations. This adds useful context without contradicting structured data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then enumerates the key content areas. Every word carries meaning, with no redundant or filler text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool with good annotations and an existing output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be provided. The output schema can handle return value details, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter information is necessary.

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 Wireshark runtime information' with a specific list of content (binaries, versions, features, allowed file roots). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on runtime environment details rather than capture, analysis, or file operations.

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 usage context is clear: use this to retrieve runtime information about Wireshark. No alternatives are mentioned, but the tool is unique among siblings for this purpose. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, but the zero-parameter, self-descriptive nature makes usage obvious.

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