tunnel_covert_channel

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the burden. It discloses the analysis techniques and the dependency on timestamps for beaconing detection, but does not mention return formats, limitations, false positives, or whether the tool is read-only.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's core function and then adds specific detail about the two analysis modes. No redundant or filler content.

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 is moderately complex with multiple methods, and while the schema covers parameters, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what results look like (e.g., boolean, risk score) or any prerequisites or limitations. This is enough for a basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of timestamps (beaconing detection) and queries (label pattern analysis), which enhances the schema's basic type and purpose information.

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 ('Detects') and resource ('covert DNS channels') and clearly states the two detection methods (timing analysis and label pattern analysis). This differentiates it from sibling tools like tunnel_query_length or tunnel_entropy_analysis, which focus on different patterns.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, explicitly noting that beaconing detection requires timestamps. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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