wireshark_dissector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the dissector does functionally, but not the tool's own behavior: whether it writes a file, where the generated script lands, what permissions or inputs (device/markers) it needs, or 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?

Two compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the load command is practical. Every sentence carries information, though the loading instruction is arguably tangential to selecting the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and 4 opaque, 0%-documented parameters, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to invoke it correctly beyond supplying a capture file.

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% across 4 parameters. The only hint the description provides is 'capture.pcapng', weakly implying the required capture parameter is a capture file; name (default 'usbrea'), device, and markers remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Wireshark Lua dissector) scoped to the inferred protocol, with useful detail on what it produces (field labels, value decoding, checksum verification). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scaffold_driver or hid_descriptor, though it never names or contrasts them.

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 second sentence explains how to load the generated artifact, not when to choose this tool over scaffold_driver, hid_descriptor, or replay_packet. There is no prerequisite context or exclusion guidance for an agent deciding between the protocol-tooling siblings.

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