packet_extract_credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the targeted credential classes ('cleartext and recoverable'), which tells the agent what findings to expect. It omits anything about output structure, false-positive behavior, or requirements (e.g., that one of input/filePath must be supplied), leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and then lists the coverage areas. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more work: it never states that exactly one of input/filePath is required, nor what a finding/result looks like. The protocol coverage is thorough, but the operational and return-value context is thin for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (base64 PCAP bytes, absolute filePath) are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (hunts for/extracts) and resource (credentials) and enumerates the exact protocols and carrier fields it inspects: HTTP Basic/Digest headers, URL query params, POST bodies, FTP USER/PASS, SMTP auth. This level of scope detail lets an agent distinguish it from the generic packet_extract_http sibling immediately.

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 enumerated protocol/field scope implies when the tool is applicable, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use packet_extract_http for raw HTTP extraction, this tool for credential-focused hunting). Usage is inferred, not stated.

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