threat_c2_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the analysis methods and the output (per-domain probability score 0-100). However, it could add context about rate limits, batch size constraints, or the heuristic nature of the score, which prevents a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and efficiently enumerates indicators and output. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the input and output format (per-domain score). It covers the key indicators and return value, making the tool self-contained. A small gap is the lack of any caveats (e.g., dependencies or thresholds), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description's mention of 'batch of domains' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') with a clear resource ('batch of domains') and details the exact indicators (DGA score, fast-flux, TTL, DNSBL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual indicators, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 for C2 detection by listing its composite indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like domain_dga_detect or bl_fast_flux_detect. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the 'when vs. siblings' guidance implicit.

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