wireshark_analyze_protocol

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that `limit` caps rows but rtp and smb protocols ignore it and return fixed-size tables. It also mentions the 'no <protocol> traffic found' response. These are behavioral traits not covered by readOnlyHint.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but the '[Protocol]' prefix seems like a placeholder rather than a structured title. Each sentence earns its place, but minor clarity improvements are possible.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return type, and a key behavioral note, but lacks details on what 'summary' and 'matching rows' mean, and how the protocol parameter's enum values correspond to analysis capabilities.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by explaining `limit` behavior. It does not describe the `protocol` parameter beyond the enum list, nor the `pcap_file` parameter. The agent lacks guidance on why to choose a protocol or how the pre-chosen fields differ.

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 analyzes one protocol with pre-chosen fields and display filters, which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, 'analyze' could be more specific about the exact output beyond 'summary plus matching rows'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like wireshark_search_packets or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy. The description implies it's for quick protocol-specific analysis but lacks when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation.

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