wireshark_get_packet_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate that. The description adds that the tool retrieves packets surrounding a frame, which implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose how the 'context' is bounded, what happens if count is too large or frame_number is missing, or any performance implications.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence. It is front-loaded with a '[Context]' tag that likely signals the type. While concise, it could benefit from slightly more structure without adding length.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe the output format, the relationship between count and the number of packets returned, or what 'surrounding' means (e.g., does it include the frame itself?). The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'count' vaguely ('count before and after'). It does not explain pcap_file or frame_number, nor does it indicate that count has a default value of 5. The agent must infer most parameter meanings from context, which is insufficient.

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 gets packets surrounding a specific frame with a count before and after. It uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource 'packet context'. Among sibling tools like wireshark_get_packet_list and wireshark_get_packet_details, this description differentiates the tool's purpose well.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_get_packet_details.

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