expert_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool uses 'tshark expert analysis' and returns results grouped by severity. It also mentions the types of issues (warnings, errors, notes), providing context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no superfluous words. First sentence states action and resource, second sentence describes output and use case. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return structure (grouped by severity) and mentions the tool's purpose. It could be more complete by describing the exact output format (e.g., JSON) or any limitations, but it is largely sufficient for such a simple tool.

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 100% with both 'file_path' and 'severity' fully described. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Run tshark expert analysis') and resource ('pcap file'), and mentions the output format ('warnings, errors, and notes grouped by severity'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'protocol_stats' or 'summarize_pcap' which do different analyses.

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 includes 'Useful for diagnosing protocol issues without reading individual packets', which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare to alternatives. With 13 sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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