extract_credentials

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact types of credentials and that Kerberos hashes are crackable, which is behavioral context beyond 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 highly concise: a one-line summary, a targeted bullet list of credential types, and a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and input sufficiently. It could optionally mention output format, but the absence is not critical for a credential extraction tool.

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 input schema only defines 'filepath' as a string with no description. The tool description clarifies it expects a path to a PCAP/PCAPNG file, adding critical meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definition.

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 potential credentials from PCAP files, listing specific credential types (HTTP Basic Auth, FTP, Telnet, Kerberos). This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic or follow_tcp_stream, which are more general.

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 implies use when credential extraction is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with alternatives. Without this, an agent might not know to choose this over similar tools like analyze_http_traffic.

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