wireshark_extract_http_requests

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

The description discloses the output format (tabular text or JSON error) and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, which is partially met.

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 concise yet comprehensive, structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Every sentence adds value, and the example provides a concrete use case.

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 an output schema exists, the description's mention of 'Tabular text with HTTP request data or JSON error' suffices for return values. The two parameters are well-explained. No critical information is missing, though error handling beyond JSON error could be elaborated.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: 'pcap_file' is described as 'Path to capture file' and 'limit' as 'Maximum requests to return (default: 100)'. This compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions (0% 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 it extracts HTTP request details (method, URI, host). It is specific to HTTP, distinguishing it from generic extraction tools like wireshark_extract_fields. The verb 'extract' and resource 'HTTP requests' are 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 description tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_extract_fields for other protocols). It does not mention when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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