wireshark_detect_dns_tunnel

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

No annotations. Description mentions returns 'DNS tunnel analysis results or JSON error' but no details on what analysis entails, read-only nature, side effects, or accuracy. Fails to disclose behavioral traits like false positives or file requirements.

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?

Concise with docstring-style sections (Args, Returns, Example). Front-loaded with purpose. Could remove 'Args' and 'Returns' to reduce redundancy, but overall efficient.

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?

Minimal for a detection tool. Mentions specific detection indicators but lacks explanation of output format, interpretation, or limitations. Output schema present but not described. Incomplete for agent to fully understand usage.

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?

Single parameter 'pcap_file' with no schema description (0% coverage). Description says 'Path to capture file,' which adds minimal value beyond the title 'Pcap File.' No additional meaning like format, size constraints, or examples.

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 explicitly states 'Detect DNS tunneling' with specific indicators like long queries, TXT abuse, subdomain entropy. Verb 'detect' and resource 'DNS tunneling' are clear, distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_arp_spoofing or detect_dos_attack.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. Example shows invocation but no context for selection.

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