tunnel_full_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the sequence (runs checks, aggregates findings, returns a 0-100 score), but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites beyond the schema, or rate limiting. The description is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 purpose and lists specific checks and the output score. Every phrase adds value, and there's 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 complex scan tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral scope (six checks, aggregation, probability score). It leaves out details about the exact return structure or error cases, but the given information is sufficient for selecting the tool correctly.

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%; both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Comprehensive DNS tunneling detection' with a specific verb ('runs'), the resource (DNS tunneling), and a full enumeration of the six checks. It distinguishes itself from individual tunnel tools by mentioning aggregation and a probability score.

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 indicates this is a comprehensive scan covering all checks, which implies using it when a full assessment is needed rather than individual checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or list alternate tools by name, leaving some room for interpretation.

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