tunnel_entropy_analysis

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 explains the calculation methodology and decision threshold, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the exact output format (e.g., per-label entropy list, boolean detection flag, or aggregated risk score), nor does it disclose edge-case behavior such as how non-FQDN inputs or empty labels are handled. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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 followed by the threshold context. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is 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?

The tool has a simple input (one array parameter at 100% schema coverage) and no annotations or output schema. The description explains the methodology well, but omits what the caller will receive back—whether it returns entropy scores per label, a verdict, or raw values. Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return semantics to be fully 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?

The input schema already describes the 'queries' parameter as a list of DNS query names. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that analysis is done 'per subdomain label' and by providing entropy thresholds that help interpret results. This enriches understanding of how the parameter is processed, though it does not specify exact formatting requirements beyond the schema's FQDN description.

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 ('Calculates Shannon entropy per subdomain label') and the purpose ('to detect DNS tunneling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tunnel_query_length (which focuses on query length) and tunnel_txt_payload (which focuses on TXT payloads) by explicitly targeting entropy 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 context on typical entropy values (normal ~3.0-3.5, tunneling >4.0), implying when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as tunnel_query_length or tunnel_full_scan, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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