wireshark_get_packet_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of returning full JSON is consistent. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as return format details or error handling. For a read-only tool with annotations, the description adds minimal value.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with '[Detail]'. It is efficient but could be more structured by clearly separating the main purpose from parameter details.

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 no output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the layers parameter but omits purpose and format for 'pcap_file' and 'frame_number'. Additionally, it does not describe what the JSON output contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 description explains only the 'layers' parameter as a 'comma-separated protocol filter'. It fails to describe the required parameters 'pcap_file' and 'frame_number', which are critical for usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 explicitly states it returns 'Full JSON for one packet' and explains the layers parameter as a protocol filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wireshark_get_packet_list' (multiple packets) and 'wireshark_get_packet_bytes' (raw bytes).

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 gives a brief hint about using the layers parameter but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the name and context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated.

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