wireshark_decrypt_tls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; description adds context about using SSLKEYLOGFILE and showing HTTP data, which aligns with readOnlyHint and provides moderate extra behavioral insight.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with '[Decrypt]' tag. No wasted words, efficient communication of core functionality.

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 complex decryption tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., decrypted packets, HTTP objects), how to interpret results, and the role of display_filter. No output schema to compensate.

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%, and the description fails to explain the parameters (pcap_file, keylog_file, display_filter) beyond their names. The mention of 'using SSLKEYLOGFILE' hints at keylog_file's role but is insufficient.

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 action (Decrypt), target (TLS traffic), method (using SSLKEYLOGFILE), and output (show HTTP data). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_decrypt_wpa and wireshark_verify_ssl_decryption.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a keylog file) or when not to use (e.g., if no keylog available). Siblings exist but no differentiation provided.

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