wireshark_flow_graph

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive behavior. It adds the types of flow graphs but does not describe any side effects, performance implications, or limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but lacks structure (e.g., not separating purpose from details). Every word is useful, but could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an image, text, or data). It only states it 'shows' a graph, leaving ambiguity about output format. Given the tool's complexity (flow graph), more context would help.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the three types for flow_type (any, tcp, icmp), which adds meaning beyond the schema's default. However, pcap_file parameter is not described, and overall parameter documentation is minimal.

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 generates a flow/sequence graph showing packet exchange, with specific types listed (any, tcp, icmp). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy or wireshark_stats_io_graph, which have different purposes.

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. While the types are listed, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not compare to sibling tools or clarify usage scenarios.

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