wireshark_analyze_tcp_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a summary or error, implying it is non-destructive but not explicitly declaring read-only behavior. It does not describe any side effects or required permissions.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides value, but the Returns section is minimal. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. However, it lacks context like typical use cases or prerequisites (e.g., file format requirements). It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 must add meaning to the parameter. It only says 'Path to capture file' for pcap_file, which is minimal and adds little beyond what is in the schema's type (string). No format, restrictions, or additional context provided.

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 name and description explicitly state it analyzes TCP connection health, listing specific indicators (retransmissions, dup ACKs, zero window, resets). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_analyze_suspicious_traffic, which has a broader focus.

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 description includes an example usage but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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