wireshark_set_protocol_prefs

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

The description claims the tool 'overrides' preferences, implying a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, contradicting the description. The description does not clarify that changes are temporary or only affect the current session, nor does it disclose any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it fails to convey key information, making it underinformative.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially destructive action (overriding preferences), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or usage constraints.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters beyond a brief example. The prefs format is shown but not formally defined; other parameters (limit, fields, pcap_file, display_filter) are completely ignored.

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 states 'Protocol preference overrides' and provides an example, indicating the tool sets dissection preferences. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'set') and does not distinguish it from similar tools like decode_as or decrypt_tls.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_decode_as). There is no context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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