export_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-and-write operation (exporting objects), but does not disclose side effects such as creating output files, overwriting behavior, or required permissions. There is no mention of what happens to the output directory or any processing limits, so significant behavioral traits remain opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, the target, and the input modes efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and input selection but lacks details about output behavior (e.g., file naming, directory creation) and edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete given the absent structured metadata.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds a small insight by noting the tool accepts 'session_id or pcap_path', hinting at mutual exclusivity, but does not elaborate on format or usage. This marginal addition keeps it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('objects from a PCAP') and specifies the basis ('protocol'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_iocs or extract_credentials by focusing on protocol-based object export.

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 provides clear context: export objects based on protocol and accept either session_id or pcap_path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like extract_iocs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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