wireshark_analyze_protocol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that – bounded row output, preset fields, and fixed tables for RTP/SMB – but says nothing about pagination, what 'bounded' means relative to the limit param, or the return shape.

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 with zero filler, and the core action plus output note are front-loaded. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the operation, bounded output, and the special protocol handling. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no return-value detail, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently across the 20-value protocol enum.

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 must carry the load and largely does not. It mentions 'one protocol' and the RTP/SMB table quirk, but never explains the limit parameter's role or bounds, nor adds meaning to the pcap_file input, leaving all three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Analyze one protocol') and adds scope detail ('with preset fields and filter'), plus a special-case note for RTP/SMB fixed tables. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g. wireshark_extract_fields or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy) that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite many overlapping siblings (extract_fields, search_packets, stats_protocol_hierarchy). Usage is only weakly implied by 'Analyze one protocol'.

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