investigate_dns_tunneling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses some behaviors (e.g., OS fingerprinting via TTL, entropy analysis) but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys core function and key features.

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 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (attack characteristics). It could optionally detail return structure but is sufficient for the complexity.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing capabilities; it does not elaborate on how parameters affect the investigation.

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 'Perform detailed DNS tunneling investigation' and lists specific outputs (attack characteristics, starting packet, source IP, OS fingerprinting via TTL, entropy analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_pcap_attacks (broader) or query_pcap (generic querying).

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 phrase 'Perfect for forensic investigations' suggests appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for non-DNS-tunneling traffic) or name alternatives like sibling tools.

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