packet_extract_websocket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful processing details (TCP reassembly, frame parsing, unmasking, decoding), but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), auth requirements, output format, error behavior, and resource limits.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core actions before the triage context. It is efficient and readable, though slightly run-on due to multiple comma-separated clauses.

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 packet extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the processing pipeline but leaves return shapes, output size considerations, and sibling selection criteria unstated. The schema handles inputs, but the agent lacks guidance on interpreting 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 the schema already documents input, limit, and filePath thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail, syntax, or constraints beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation in this case.

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 specific verbs and resource: reassembles TCP streams, parses RFC 6455 WebSocket frames, unmasks client payloads, decodes text/JSON messages. The WebSocket scope inherently distinguishes it from siblings like packet_extract_http or packet_extract_tls_sni, but it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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 phrase 'for persistent C2 or chat triage' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling extractors, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or conditions for use.

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