auto_webshell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main actions and the output location ('extract loot to workdir/loot'), which implies filesystem writes. However, it does not mention whether it modifies PCAP state, what happens if neither session_id nor pcap_path is provided, or failure behavior. Some key behavioral traits are guessable but not explicit.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('One-shot webshell analysis') and lists the steps in logical order. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

This is a complex multi-step pipeline with 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description omits what the tool returns, how results are presented, and how it handles edge cases like both session_id and pcap_path being provided. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied contexts.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship 'Accepts session_id or pcap_path', which clarifies the input requirement, but it does not add meaning for the other parameters (loot_dir, max_packets, max_streams, min_confidence) beyond what the schema already describes. Minimal added value.

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 explicitly names the tool as 'One-shot webshell analysis' and lists the full pipeline: enumerate HTTP streams, detect tool family, extract/guess key, decrypt, and extract loot. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like detect_webshell, extract_webshell_key, and decrypt_webshell, which handle individual steps.

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 'one-shot' phrasing and the enumerated steps give clear context that this tool is the all-in-one alternative to running separate sibling tools. It also states it accepts 'session_id or pcap_path', implying when input sources are available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name.

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