packet_to_zeek_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the output format and a key negative constraint (no Zeek scripting engine execution). However, it omits whether output is written to disk or returned inline, what happens on malformed/oversized PCAP, and any size limit beyond the schema's 10MB note.

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: the primary capability with format and target sinks is front-loaded, and the parenthetical limitation follows. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the return contract (file paths written? TSV returned?) and note that one of input/filePath must be supplied, since both are optional in the schema. The format disclosure partially compensates, but a key operational gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% – both input (base64, 10MB cap) and filePath (absolute path, local stdio only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 (exports) and a concrete resource (connection/DNS/HTTP events) plus the exact output shape (Zeek-compatible TSV: conn.log, dns.log, http.log). It is distinguishable from packet_extract_dns/http because of the multi-protocol Zeek TSV framing, though it never explicitly draws that contrast with those siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied through the SIEM-ingestion framing (Splunk, ELK, Wazuh) and the caveat that it does not run Zeek scripting. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, so an agent must infer that this tool supersedes the single-protocol extract siblings for Zeek pipelines.

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