wireshark_verify_ssl_decryption

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

The description discloses that the tool returns 'Expert info with decryption status or JSON error', giving a sense of output. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or constraints. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 fairly concise, with a one-line summary, args, returns, and an example. It avoids verbosity, though the example partially duplicates the function signature. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 verification tool with two required parameters and an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers the essential: what it does, required inputs, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 schema has two parameters with only titles (0% coverage). The description adds clear semantics: 'pcap_file: Path to capture file' and 'keylog_file: Path to SSL/TLS keylog file (SSLKEYLOGFILE format)', including format hint. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 name 'wireshark_verify_ssl_decryption' and description '[TLS] Verify TLS decryption with keylog file' clearly state the tool's purpose (verifying TLS decryption). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on decryption verification, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like wireshark_extract_tls_handshakes.

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 (e.g., which TLS-related tool to pick). It only states what it does, with an example, but lacks context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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