wireshark_get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses return format (detailed metadata or JSON error) and lists two specific error cases (FileNotFound, ToolNotFound). This adds behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, tool used, returns, errors, example. Each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (assumed to exist), the description covers purpose, key behavior, errors, and usage example. It is complete and does not leave gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. Only an example value ('traffic.pcap') is provided, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Pcap File' title. No further explanation of format or path resolution is given.

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 it gets detailed metadata about a capture file and lists specific metadata types (file type, packet count, duration, size). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on traffic analysis or packet inspection.

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 by naming the underlying tool (capinfos), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide alternatives. Usage is clear from purpose, but lacks explicit when-not or comparative guidance.

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