pcap_http_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it creates files in the output directory (indicating mutation/write operations) and returns specific data (exported_count, output_dir, files list, tshark_output). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies the filesystem.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and efficiently covers key outputs and side effects in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (filesystem mutation, PCAP processing) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, outputs, and side effects but misses details like error conditions, performance expectations, or security implications, which are important for such an operation.

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 fully documents both parameters (pcap_path and output_dir). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Export HTTP objects from a PCAP') and resource ('files') with the destination ('to a directory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pcap_detect_scan' or 'pcap_extract_credentials' by focusing on HTTP object extraction rather than scanning, credential extraction, or other PCAP analyses.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pcap_extract_credentials' for credential extraction or 'pcap_dns_analysis' for DNS analysis. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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