wireshark_get_packet_details

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it returns a complete JSON structure and mentions the optional layers parameter to reduce output size. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or edge cases, but as a read-like operation, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose sentence, clear Args section with explanations, a Returns line, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 only 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists (though not provided), the description covers the essential usage. It could mention that pcap_file should be a path to a valid capture file, but the example implies it. Overall, it's complete for a straightforward detail retrieval tool.

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 adds meaning. It explains the layers parameter with format example and benefit (reduces size). For pcap_file and frame_number, the names are self-explanatory, but the description does not provide additional context beyond names.

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 the tool is for retrieving full details of a SINGLE packet, analogous to Wireshark's bottom pane. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_get_packet_list by emphasizing 'single packet' and the detail focus.

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 a packet list (by mentioning frame_number from wireshark_get_packet_list) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It outlines parameters but lacks direct guidance on when not to use.

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