extract_iocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, any side effects, or required permissions. 'Extract' suggests non-destructive behavior but this is not confirmed, and no details about return values or limitations are given.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the tool's function in a highly efficient manner.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the relationship between the session_id parameter and the 'loaded PCAP', nor does it describe what the extracted IOCs look like or how filters affect the output. For a tool with potential complexity around session state and filtering, more context is needed.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'session_id' as 'ID of the session' and 'filters' as 'Optional filters to apply'. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Extract') and resource ('Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)') from a specific context ('the loaded PCAP'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_credentials or extract_ntlm_hashes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from the loaded PCAP' implies a prerequisite (loading a PCAP first) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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