analyze_http_headers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about specific extracted items (cookies, auth headers, suspicious headers) and mention of input file type, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, bullet list of extracted items, and parameter list. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core behavior and parameters. However, it lacks indication of the output format, which could be important for an agent to interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: filepath is a path to a PCAP/PCAPNG file, and include_cookies indicates whether to include cookie analysis. The explanations are clear and add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Analyze HTTP headers from a PCAP file'. It specifies the resource (HTTP headers) and verb (analyze), and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic and extract_credentials by focusing solely on headers and tokens.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies usage for header analysis, no guidance is provided on scenarios such as when to use analyze_http_traffic or extract_credentials instead.

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