bl_fast_flux_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the method (multiple DNS resolutions with intervals) and the output (flux score 0-100). It does not mention potential wait times or failure modes, but for a read-only detection probe this is reasonably transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: the action, the indicators, and the return value. No wasted words.

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?

It covers what, how, and what is returned. Given there is no output schema, explaining the flux score is valuable. It lacks explicit notes on duration (samples * interval_ms) and failure handling, but overall it is sufficient for a moderately complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by connecting the parameters to fast-flux indicators (e.g., 'multiple IPs per query' justifies 'samples', 'very low TTL' relates to resolution timing). This helps the agent understand why to tune samples and interval_ms.

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 verb 'Detect' with a specific resource ('fast-flux DNS behavior') and explains the method (resolving a domain multiple times with intervals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bl_check_dnsbl by focusing on fast-flux indicators.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when fast-flux is suspected) and lists observable indicators. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as dns_ttl_analysis for TTL-focused inspection.

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