tunnel_record_anomaly

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool analyzes and detects patterns, implying read-only analysis, but does not disclose return format, side effects, or external calls. It adds some context about specific record types but not enough to fully characterize behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, the second adds specific detection targets. Every word earns its place.

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 analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains the core function and detection scope, but lacks details on the return value/format and any prerequisites or limitations. No annotations or output schema increase the need for explicit return behavior, which is absent.

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?

Input schema fully describes the single 'queries' parameter, giving a 100% coverage baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value by specifying the exact DNS record types analyzed (NULL, TXT, CNAME, MX) and the tunneling context, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Analyzes' with clear resource 'DNS queries' and explicitly names record types (NULL, TXT, CNAME, MX) and pattern type (abuse/tunneling), distinguishing it from sibling tunnel_* tools that focus on length, payload, or signatures.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like tunnel_query_length or tunnel_txt_payload; usage is only implied by the tunnel_* naming family. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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