packet_extract_tls_sni

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no payload decryption occurs and that output is frequency-ranked, which is real added context. It omits whether the operation is read-only, any size/permission constraints, and the local-only vs base64 input tradeoff.

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 extraction target and closed with the non-decryption constraint and ranking behavior. No wasted text.

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?

For a read-only extraction tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape (ranked domains plus client metadata). It could say more about what 'client metadata' includes, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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%, with each of input, limit, and filePath fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that input and filePath are alternatives).

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 resource (SNI hostnames / client metadata from TLS ClientHello), plus a secondary behavior (frequency ranking). It implicitly separates itself from packet_extract_quic_sni by scoping to TLS, but never names siblings explicitly.

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 guidance on when to choose this over packet_extract_quic_sni, packet_ja3_fingerprints, or packet_extract_http. The reader must infer from the protocol name alone.

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