analysis_list_http_hosts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the grouping behavior and example methods/URIs, which are not in annotations. It does not disclose details about limits or filtering, but those are less critical given the read-only nature.

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 directly states the tool's action and output. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The tool's purpose is stated clearly, and annotations cover safety. However, the lack of parameter guidance remains a gap, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 0% and the description fails to explain any of the four parameters. The names (limit, max_packets, display_filter) are somewhat self-explanatory but lack critical context such as what max_packets limits or how display_filter is applied. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'HTTP hosts', specifying grouping by request host and inclusion of example methods and URIs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analysis_list_tcp_conversations and analysis_list_tls_sni.

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: it is for listing HTTP hosts in an analysis session. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives. The context is sufficient to infer intended use, but there are no exclusions or comparisons.

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