wireshark_yara_scan

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description only describes a read-only 'scan' operation. This is a contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., files modified, permissions needed) is provided.

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 with a '[Security]' tag, but it is somewhat cryptic and could benefit from clearer structure. It packs information into a few phrases, but some sentences are missing.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify input prerequisites and return values. It fails to mention that exported objects must exist first or what the scan results look like, leaving significant 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 coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'protocol' parameter by listing expected values (http|smb|tftp) but does not explain 'pcap_file' or 'dest_dir' beyond their existence in the schema.

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 'YARA scan exported files' with specific detection targets (malware, webshells, shellcode) and protocols (http|smb|tftp). This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the security focus differentiates it from many sibling tools.

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 like wireshark_detect_exfiltration or wireshark_scan_file_signatures. No prerequisites (e.g., exported files) or exclusions are mentioned.

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