wireshark_extract_credentials

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true confirms no modification, and 'Scan' aligns with read-only behavior. The description adds context about scanning specific credential types, but does not detail output format or any side effects.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded tag, making it efficient. However, it is somewhat terse and could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent but omits return value details and protocol coverage scope beyond examples. It is minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the 'pcap_file' parameter at all. The parameter's purpose is obvious from the tool name, but no constraints or examples are provided.

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 scans for plaintext credentials, listing specific protocols like HTTP Basic Auth, FTP, and Telnet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as wireshark_extract_http_requests or wireshark_extract_dns_queries, which focus on different data extraction.

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 starts with '[Security]', indicating its domain, and the protocol examples imply when to use it (when looking for plaintext credentials). However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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