detect_webshell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'using fingerprint matching' and focuses on encrypted traffic, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it requires prior session setup, or what the output format is. This is a moderate gap.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by pragmatic usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It provides use cases but does not explain expected return values, interpretation of results, or session prerequisites. The presence of related sibling tools like load_pcap and close_session suggests a session context that could have been clarified.

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% for both session_id and stream_index, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameter usage beyond the schema, hitting the baseline of 3.

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 tool detects encrypted webshell traffic (Behinder, Godzilla, AntSword) via fingerprint matching. The verb 'Detect' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like detect_port_scan or detect_suspicious.

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 provides three trigger conditions: 'User asks about webshell', 'Suspicious HTTP traffic found', and 'Encrypted POST data detected.' This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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