extract_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input source (PCAP file) and protocols, but does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, describe the output format, or address error handling. The purpose is clear, but behavioral details remain implicit.

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 sentences: the first states the function and protocols, the second lists usage scenarios. The Chinese prefix '【取证分析】' is concise and the text contains no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should indicate return values and clarify input precedence (e.g., pcap_path vs session_id). While the core purpose and usage scenarios are covered, the omission of output format and parameter interaction leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes all three parameters (pcap_path, session_id, tshark_path) with meaningful descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no supplementary parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' with a defined resource ('credentials from a PCAP file') and explicitly lists supported protocols (HTTP Basic, FTP, Telnet, Kerberos). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as extract_ntlm_hashes or extract_iocs, which target different artifacts.

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 explicit 'Use this when' conditions (finding passwords, credential harvesting analysis, forensic investigation), which clearly communicate when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the conditions are concrete enough to guide selection.

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