wireshark_search_packets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the purpose. It does not disclose behavior like return format, pagination, or what happens on no match. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description should at least mention non-obvious traits.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient but under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but omits critical details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness, so a midpoint score is appropriate.

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 5 parameters (including two enums), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not address how parameters interact, supported search types, or scope values, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description only implies the purpose of match_pattern. It fails to explain the other four parameters (pcap_file, limit, scope, search_type), including their defaults and enums. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description is severely lacking.

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 'Find packets by content' clearly states the action (find) and resource (packets) with a specific method (by content). It distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_get_packet_list (which likely just lists without search) and wireshark_read_packets (raw reading). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the pcap file context or contrast with other search-like tools, so not a perfect 5.

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 such as wireshark_get_packet_list or wireshark_detect_port_scan. It lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent without decision support.

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