packet_extract_quic_sni

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only RFC 9001 Initial-packet secrets are AEAD-decrypted, implying post-handshake QUIC packets are not recoverable, and bounds scope to QUIC v1. It does not state failure behavior, permission/read-only status, or payload size limits beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core scope (SNI/ALPN/Connection IDs from QUIC Initial) leads. It is jargon-dense with a long trailing technical clause, but every element is informative rather than padding.

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 must justify both the tool's behavior and its results. It adequately frames the input scope and decryption method but never hints at the shape of the returned handshakes (fields, per-packet grouping) nor the interaction between the input and filePath parameters.

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 input, limit, and filePath are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or exclusivity guidance (e.g. input vs filePath) beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Extracts) and precise resource (SNI hostnames, ALPN tags, DCID/SCID) scoped to QUIC v1 / HTTP/3 Initial packets over UDP 443. The protocol qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling packet_extract_tls_sni.

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 or when-not-to-use statement, and it never names the sibling packet_extract_tls_sni as the alternative. Usage is only implied by the protocol/port scope, leaving the agent to infer that QUIC traffic (not TLS-over-TCP) is the trigger.

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