expert_info

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

The description discloses cache-after-first-scan behavior and lists output field identifiers (f, s, p, m). However, with no annotations, it could provide more details on thread safety, performance impacts, or required permissions.

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 two paragraphs with a clear summary at the start. It is mostly concise, though the second paragraph contains some redundant enumeration of what 'anomaly detection results' includes.

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 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the output structure but fails to clarify parameter usage or broader invocation context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them (alias, display_filter, skip, limit). It adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema names.

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 it returns per-frame expert diagnostics including errors, warnings, notes, and chats, and specifies it provides Wireshark's built-in anomaly detection results. This is a specific verb-resource pair, but it does not explicitly differentiate from 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned. The description only implies use for anomaly detection without contextual advice.

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