detect_suspicious

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'predefined rules'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what output is produced. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile and behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and context efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also leaves ambiguous what constitutes 'suspicious activity' and how results are presented, which is problematic given the large number of sibling tools and the need for accurate selection.

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 input schema gives 100% description coverage for both parameters (session_id and ruleset), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it merely repeats the idea of 'predefined rules' without clarifying possible ruleset values or how they affect detection.

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 identifies the verb ('Detect') and resource ('suspicious activity in the loaded PCAP'), adding 'based on predefined rules' for specificity. However, it does not distinguish from overlapping siblings like advanced_threat_detection or detect_port_scan, leaving slight ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 'in the loaded PCAP' implies a prerequisite (the PCAP must be loaded via load_pcap), providing some usage context. Yet it lacks explicit recommendations on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative names are given.

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