wireshark_follow_stream

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Reassemble stream' aligns with that. The description does not add any additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but there is no contradiction.

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 brief (one line) and lacks structure. The bracketed '[Stream]' prefix is unclear. It does not effectively front-load key information; it is under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and the minimal annotation coverage (only readOnlyHint), the description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, pagination mechanism, or how results are returned. Significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate. It only lists possible values for 'protocol' and 'output_mode' without explanation, and omits the other 5 parameters entirely (pcap_file, stream_index, limit_lines, offset_lines, search_content). This is insufficient to clarify parameter usage.

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 states 'Reassemble stream with pagination', which gives a clear verb and resource. It indicates the tool reassembles network streams and supports pagination. However, it lacks context to differentiate it from sibling tools like wireshark_flow_graph, and the term 'stream' could be ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_search_packets. No prerequisites, use cases, or conditions are mentioned.

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