get_expert_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds 'Extract' and 'Returns' but provides no additional behavioral details like error handling, file size constraints, or performance considerations.

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: two sentences and a parameter line. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, with no redundancy. Every part serves a clear purpose.

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?

While the description explains purpose and input, it lacks details on the return structure (e.g., format of warnings/errors/notes) and error conditions. For a tool with no output schema, this is a notable gap. It adequately covers the basic usage but not edge cases.

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 description adds meaning to the single parameter 'filepath' by stating it expects a 'Path to PCAP/PCAPNG file', which is not present in the input schema. This clarifies the expected file format, though it lacks details on path types (absolute/relative) or validation.

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 the tool extracts Wireshark expert information from a PCAP file, specifying the output includes warnings, errors, and notes. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic or follow_tcp_stream by focusing on Wireshark's expert system.

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 suggests use cases 'for identifying protocol violations, malformed packets, etc.', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use it, such as for basic packet capture analysis.

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