wireshark_stats_expert_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the types of anomalies detected (retransmissions, errors, etc.) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as performance impact or file requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but minimal.

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 very short and front-loaded with a label. However, it lacks crucial details about parameters and output, making it incomplete. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, safe read operation), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format or provide any example. An agent would need to infer what 'expert info' returns, which affects usability.

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 tool description does not explain the single required parameter 'pcap_file'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should explicitly state it is the packet capture file to analyze. This omission leaves ambiguity for unfamiliar agents.

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 clearly states it is about 'Expert Info' for automatic anomaly detection and lists specific anomalies (retransmissions, errors, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling detection tools by referencing the Wireshark expert info feature, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like wireshark_detect_protocol_anomalies.

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. The description implies it provides automatic expert info but does not specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or cases where other detection tools would be more suitable.

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