packet_extract_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits—label pointer loop protection and aggregated output—but omits safety/read-only status, permissions, and input handling constraints (e.g., the 10MB limit is only in the schema).

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the core extraction purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the aggregation and transaction details. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe return aggregates and transaction details. Combined with full schema coverage for parameters, it is nearly complete for a simple extraction tool, though it lacks any usage-routing context.

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 schema already documents all parameters including input, limit, filePath, and queryType. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond listing DNS record types, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extracts and parses') and resource ('DNS queries and responses'), and adds scope (RFC 1035) plus extra parsing features. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like packet_detect_dns_tunneling or packet_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing is provided. The purpose implies extraction, but the description gives no guidance on choosing this over related DNS or summary tools.

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