net_dns_tunnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the analysis dimensions but omits details on side effects, auth requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. Given the lack of contradictory hints, a mid-range score is appropriate; it does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately list the key analytic dimensions. No redundant or verbose phrases; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-factor DNS analysis), the description covers the input (PCAP file) and analytic dimensions. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could better explain what the detection result looks like (e.g., a score, list of suspicious domains). Still, it is largely complete for guiding a capable agent.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'file_path' (described as 'Path to PCAP capture file'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, earning the baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'DNS tunneling detection' and lists specific analysis techniques (subdomain length distribution, label entropy, TXT record usage, etc.), making the function highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like net_http_header or net_icmp_payload.

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 implies usage for detecting DNS covert channels in PCAP files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., net_detect, net_stats). No exclusions or conditional scenarios are mentioned.

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