wireshark_detect_dos_attack

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only analysis nature. Description adds context on attack types but does not elaborate on other behaviors, scope, or effects beyond annotations.

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 sentence includes security tag and concrete examples, concise with no wasted words.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description lacks details on output format, usage scope, and limitations, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

Parameter pcap_file has 0% schema coverage and the description provides no additional meaning or context about the parameter, leaving the agent uninformed about input requirements.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool detects DoS/DDoS patterns and lists specific examples (SYN flood, ICMP/UDP flood, DNS amplification), clearly distinguishing it from other detect tools like detect_port_scan or detect_exfiltration.

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, limitations, or comparison with siblings like detect_dns_tunnel or detect_beaconing.

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