extract_webshell_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (extract key) and context (handshake traffic), which implies a read-only operation on network data. However, it does not explicitly disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or return structure, leaving some ambiguity for a tool without annotation support.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides structured usage conditions via a numbered list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It is an efficient, well-organized description.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It provides the purpose, likely workflow position, and conditions for use. The lack of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, though it could have mentioned how the extracted key integrates with decrypt_webshell. Overall, it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and 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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant detail beyond the schema—it mentions 'first request' which loosely relates to stream_index, but does not clarify parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Extract decryption key from webshell handshake traffic.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like detect_webshell (which detects encrypted traffic) and decrypt_webshell (which presumably uses the key). The Chinese prefix '【Webshell专用】' further emphasizes its specialized scope.

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 when-to-use guidance with a numbered list: after detect_webshell finds encrypted traffic, when the user knows the webshell type, or when a potential key exchange is found. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives and outlines the correct sequence in a workflow.

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