tunnel_tool_signatures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states it matches patterns and returns matched tools with descriptions and indicators, which is meaningful. It does not mention data sources or side effects, but for a read-only detection tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, provides a list of examples, and states the return value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple: one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage context, and return values. It could mention behavior when no matches are found, but the overall completeness is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema already fully describes the 'queries' parameter as 'List of DNS query names (FQDNs) to match against tunneling tool signatures.' The description adds the list of known tools and return behavior but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'matches' with a clear resource: DNS query patterns against known tunneling tool signatures. It lists concrete examples (iodine, dns2tcp, dnscat2, Cobalt Strike, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tunnel_query_length or tunnel_entropy_analysis.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when DNS tunneling from known signature-based tools is suspected. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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