wireshark_detect_port_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it returns 'port scan analysis results or JSON error', which gives some understanding, but does not disclose whether it modifies the pcap file or requires special permissions. The threshold behavior is explained.

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 at two lines plus a structured docstring with args and returns. It is front-loaded with '[Security] Detect port scanning...', includes an example, and wastes no 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 no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks some context on prerequisites (e.g., if the pcap file must be opened first), but for a simple detection tool with two parameters, it is fairly complete.

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 adds meaning: 'pcap_file: Path to capture file' and 'threshold: Minimum unique destination ports to flag as scan (default: 15)'. This compensates well, though pcap_file could be more specific about format.

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 'Detect port scanning (SYN, FIN, NULL, Xmas scans)', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_detect_dos_attack or wireshark_detect_arp_spoofing.

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 security use by starting with '[Security]' and provides an example, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other detection tools (e.g., ARP spoofing detection). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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