detect_suspicious_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: results are heuristic leads, not verdicts, and require manual review. This is meaningful transparency, though it does not discuss input requirements or potential false-positive behavior in more depth.

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 two short sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and immediately add a critical usage/interpretation rule. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, the description leaves the sole required input parameter undefined and provides no sibling-selection guidance. The clear purpose and lead-framing do not compensate for the missing path semantics.

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 0% and the description never mentions the required 'path' parameter. An agent sees only a generic string property named 'path' with no indication of whether it should be a file, directory, URL, or how it relates to the detection task.

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 first sentence states a concrete action and resource: 'Find heuristic port-scan, periodic beacon, and DNS-tunnel leads.' It names three specific pattern categories and frames the output as leads, which clearly differentiates this tool from the more targeted sibling inspection tools.

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 a triage use case—heuristic detection for manual follow-up—but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like inspect_dns_queries or find_tcp_anomalies, nor does it state when not to use it.

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