network_http

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or modifies state. It only lists fields returned, omitting behavioral details like whether it analyzes a pcap file or fetches live data.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It conveys minimal information without any formatting or additional context, making it functional but not well-organized.

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 simple input and existence of an output schema, the description should at least explain how to use the 'pcap' parameter and what the tool does with it. It fails to define the parameter's role, leaving the tool incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'pcap', and the description does not mention or clarify what 'pcap' represents (e.g., file path, identifier). This leaves agents without necessary usage details.

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 'HTTP requests with host, method, URI, and source IP' clearly indicates the tool deals with HTTP request data, distinguishing it from siblings like network_dns or network_smtp. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'extract', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_dns, network_search). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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