wireshark_extract_http_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the output format (TSV) and the extracted fields, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose that the 'limit' parameter truncates results or that only the first N requests are returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and output format.

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?

For a simple extraction tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and format. However, it lacks details on parameter behavior and potential edge cases (e.g., non-HTTP PCAPs), leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions extracted fields but does not describe the 'pcap_file' or 'limit' parameters. The agent is left to infer that 'pcap_file' is the input PCAP and 'limit' controls request count, but no explicit clarification is given.

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 extracts HTTP request details (method, URI, host, user-agent) and outputs as TSV. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like wireshark_extract_credentials or wireshark_extract_dns_queries.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wireshark_extract_fields). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., pcap must contain HTTP traffic) or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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