wireshark_detect_arp_spoofing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool returns ARP analysis results or JSON error, indicating a read-only analysis. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond basic input-output behavior.

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 and well-structured, including purpose, arguments, returns, and an example in a few lines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the input, the detection focus, and the output format (ARP analysis results or JSON error). Minor omissions like prerequisites or data requirements are implied but not explicit.

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?

The description explicitly explains the 'pcap_file' parameter as a 'Path to capture file', adding meaning beyond the schema's type 'string'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates effectively by defining the parameter's purpose clearly.

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 detects potential ARP spoofing and lists specific types (duplicate IP-MAC, gratuitous floods, reply storms). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel and wireshark_detect_dos_attack which target different protocols.

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 implies usage for ARP spoofing detection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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