Count packets in a pcap that contain common file signatures for forensic triage; flagged hits need object extraction and verification.
[Forensics] Count packets containing common file signatures. Hits require object extraction and verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pcap_file | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat: 'Hits require object extraction and verification', warning that raw counts are unverified and need follow-up. It does not clarify that output is only counts (not packet lists) or what signatures are matched.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the actionable verification caveat. No waste, though the bracketed category tag is the only structural cue.
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 read-only scanner with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives purpose and one important caveat. It omits what 'common file signatures' means, what the counts represent, and how to follow up on hits, leaving moderate gaps.
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% for the single required pcap_file parameter. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema and does not reference the parameter at all.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Count packets containing common file signatures', with a [Forensics] category tag. It is distinguishable from wireshark_yara_scan (rule-based) and wireshark_extract_fingerprints, but never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.
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 when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is not told when to pick this over wireshark_yara_scan, wireshark_export_objects, or wireshark_extract_fingerprints, all of which overlap with signature-based forensic scanning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.