detect_auth_pattern

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 that the tool is a scan (non-mutating), explains the default behavior of scanning the 100 most recent flows if flow_ids is omitted, and states it returns detected auth types and associated flow IDs. This is solid behavioral transparency, though it does not explicitly say 'does not modify traffic' or address potential failure modes.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a prereq callout, a bulleted list of detectable types, return info, usage guidance, and parameter details. Although slightly long, every sentence adds distinct value, and the organization aids quick comprehension.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present (though not shown in the prompt). The description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, default behavior, and return type. No significant gaps remain.

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 merely defines flow_ids as an optional string with no description. The description compensates fully by specifying comma-separated format, giving an example, and explaining that omission triggers automatic scanning of the 100 most recent flows. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Automatically scan captured traffic to detect authentication mechanisms.' It then lists specific auth types detected (JWT, Bearer tokens, API keys, etc.), making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_traffic or extract_from_flow, which have different objectives.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'early in a pentest' and highlights a prerequisite (proxy running with captured traffic). It provides enough context for an agent to know when to deploy it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'early in a pentest' guidance and the tool's specific scope implicitly separate it from other traffic analysis tools.

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