pcap_extract

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 clearly states the tool reads a PCAP file and returns structured findings by protocol, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any constraints (e.g., file size limits, supported protocol versions, or how errors are reported) or whether it saves results to disk. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a security tool.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of extraction targets, a parameter explanation, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition. The line breaks make it scannable and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to cover the input, purpose, and return shape. It does cover these adequately, but it lacks usage context (when to use vs siblings) and any detail on error behavior or performance. Overall, it is a minimum viable description: acceptable but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for the single parameter. It specifies that pcap_path must point to a .pcap or .pcapng file, adding the accepted file formats that the schema (string type) does not convey. This extra context fully explains the parameter's expected value, though it could also mention path handling (relative vs absolute) for a perfect score.

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 ('Extract') with a clear resource ('PCAP file') and enumerates exactly what it extracts (HTTP requests, FTP/Telnet/SMTP credentials, DNS queries, usernames/passwords). This level of specificity distinguishes it from generic query tools like tshark_query and from sibling pcap_protocols, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention pcap_protocols for protocol listing, tshark_query for arbitrary queries, or any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The only implicit usage clue is the extraction focus, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between multiple PCAP-related tools.

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