wireshark_capture

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions capture stops based on duration/packet count and returns success/error, but does not disclose that capturing may be blocking, infinite if duration=0, or require special permissions. It also doesn't warn about large file creation.

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 with Args, Returns, Errors, and an Example. It is structured well but could be more front-loaded; the key action is in the first sentence.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, no nested objects, and an output schema exists (not shown), the description covers input well. However, it could include more context on blocking behavior and permissions for completeness.

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%, but the description defines each parameter clearly: interface (from list_interfaces), output_file (absolute path), duration_seconds (0=unlimited), packet_count (0=unlimited), capture_filter (BPF syntax), ring_buffer (config format). This adds meaning beyond schema titles.

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 'Capture live network traffic,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that analyze or process existing captures.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While it is the only capture tool among siblings, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., admin privileges, interface availability) or exclusions.

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