wireshark_list_ips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (newline-separated list) and that it extracts IPs from a capture, but lacks details on whether it modifies data, performance implications, or the fact that it only works on loaded captures. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 succinct and well-organized with sections for purpose, parameters, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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's simplicity, the description covers most of what is needed: purpose, parameters, return format, and example. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., pcap file must exist) and does not mention any related tools for comparison. Still, it is largely complete for a basic utility.

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 'type' parameter is explained ('IP type to extract - 'src', 'dst', or 'both'), but the 'pcap_file' parameter is not described, only implied in the example. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented, resulting in average semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all unique IP addresses in capture' with a specific verb and resource. The '[Convenience]' label and the rest of the description distinguish it from sibling tools like wireshark_extract_fields, which extracts arbitrary fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireshark_extract_fields or wireshark_search_packets. The description does not explain scenarios where listing unique IPs is appropriate or when other tools might be better.

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