wireshark_detect_dos_attack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns detection results or a JSON error, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose details like file format requirements (e.g., must be pcap), potential memory usage, or that it doesn't modify the file. Adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a title line, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 the single parameter and the presence of an output schema (indicated by context), the description covers the core purpose, parameter, and return expectation. An example is provided. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., pcap file validity) or output schema details, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple detection tool.

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 input schema for 'pcap_file' has no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'Path to capture file', which provides basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title. While minimal, it compensates for the schema gap. A higher score would require more detail like file format or constraints.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: detecting DoS/DDoS patterns like SYN flood, ICMP/UDP flood, and DNS amplification. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('DoS patterns'), and the security tag along with listed attack types differentiates it from sibling tools such as wireshark_detect_arp_spoofing or wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wireshark_security_audit or wireshark_check_threats. The description implies it is for DoS detection, but does not provide conditions or exclusions. The context of many sibling tools makes this gap noticeable.

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