wireshark_analyze_protocol

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: it discloses the return shape ('summary and bounded rows') and that BLE protocol values yield extra artifacts (device inventory, scanners, GATT timeline, connection lifecycle, pairing). That output-shaping detail is genuinely useful and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The BLE clause is dense but earns its place by flagging protocol-specific output differences; the leading '[Protocol]' marker is slightly cryptic but harmless.

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 output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does so only at a high level ('summary and bounded rows'). It omits the meaning of 'preset fields,' row format/pagination behavior, and the required pcap_file input, leaving notable gaps for a 3-parameter analysis tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 carries the burden and only partially discharges it. It clarifies that exactly one protocol is analyzed and hints at row bounding (the 'limit' parameter), but it never explains the meaning of limit's default, nor mentions pcap_file at all. The enum itself self-documents the valid protocol values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze one protocol with preset fields and filter.' An agent can tell this is a preset-driven per-protocol analysis, but the description never names or contrasts any of the 40+ siblings (e.g. wireshark_quick_analysis, wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The only implicit signal is the protocol enum, which tells the agent what can be analyzed but not when this tool is the right choice versus wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy, wireshark_search_packets, or wireshark_quick_analysis.

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