detect_security_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the nature of the operation (scanning a PCAP for specific anomaly types) and the output ordering (ranked by severity). However, it does not mention side effects, whether the input file is modified, access requirements, performance implications, or error conditions. It adds some behavioral context but not a complete picture.

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, dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the detection categories and ranking behavior. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it an efficiently structured description.

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 a simple signature (one required parameter) and an output schema, which covers return-value details. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use the tool versus siblings and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a single-param scanner, the description is mostly complete but misses a few contextual details.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Scan a PCAP' directly informs the agent that the file_path parameter should be a path to a PCAP capture file. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string schema. Though it does not explicitly bind file_path to the PCAP or mention format constraints, the single parameter's purpose is clearly established.

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 action ('Scan a PCAP'), the resource (PCAP file), and the specific detection targets (port scans, ARP spoofing, high-entropy DNS queries, cleartext credentials). The verb is specific and the resource is concrete. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_capture_summary or list_tcp_conversations by focusing on security anomaly detection rather than general capture metadata or conversation listing.

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 implies usage: when you need to detect security anomalies in a PCAP, use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The behavioral distinction from siblings is inferable from the description, but no direct guidance such as 'use for threat hunting' or 'not for general traffic analysis' is provided, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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