packet_extract_http

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavioral traits: TCP stream reassembly, HTTP/1.x only, chunked transfer handling, and a 4KB body preview cap. However, it omits anything about error behavior on non-HTTP or malformed streams, or what happens when no transactions are found, so the disclosure is partial.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted preamble. The trailing phrase 'cognitive guidance hints' is vague filler that does not clearly describe an output, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient structure.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is extracted (method, URI, headers, status codes, chunked transfers, body previews), effectively standing in for return-value documentation. It is nearly complete for a 4-param extraction tool, lacking only guidance on empty/failed extraction results.

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 all four parameters (input, limit, method, filePath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reassembles TCP streams and extracts HTTP/1.x requests and responses.' The HTTP/1.x focus cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like packet_extract_dns, packet_extract_tls_sni, and packet_extract_websocket.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the HTTP tool from the name and the protocol mention alone, with nothing about when to prefer it over packet_extract_conversations or packet_filter_export.

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