wireshark_follow_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (limit_lines, offset_lines), search capability, output modes, and error conditions. It does not mention any destructive actions (likely read-only) or performance implications, but overall provides good behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.

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 structured with sections for description, args, returns, errors, and example. However, it is somewhat verbose (15 lines) and contains redundancy (e.g., the parameter list repeats schema fields without adding value for pcap_file). It could be more concise by integrating the missing pcap_file explanation.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers pagination, searching, and output modes, but does not explain how to obtain the stream_index from sibling tools like wireshark_stats_conversations. It also lacks details on the return format beyond 'reconstructed stream data', and the output schema exists but is not leveraged. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters (stream_index, protocol, output_mode, limit_lines, offset_lines, search_content) but critically omits 'pcap_file', a required parameter, from the parameter list. The example shows pcap_file as the first argument, but the description does not clarify its purpose or constraints. This is a significant gap.

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 reassembles and views complete stream content, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions pagination and search, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on statistics or extraction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like wireshark_export_objects or wireshark_extract_http_requests, which also deal with stream data.

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 usage after obtaining stream index from conversations/stats, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides an example with search_content, but no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., needing a pcap file from wireshark_capture or similar).

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