suricata_correlate_zeek

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return values (alert details and instructions) but omits behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the action ('Cross-reference') and efficiently conveys the tool's core function and output.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the matching logic, what the 'instructions to investigate the same flow' entail, or how to interpret results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific insight beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., it does not clarify how 'communityId' is used for correlation or the role of 'limit'). No added value.

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: cross-referencing a Suricata alert with Zeek logs. It specifies the matching methods (community_id or IP/port/time) and outputs (alert details plus Zeek investigation instructions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suricata_query_alerts or zeek_query_connections.

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 when you have a Suricata alert and want Zeek context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using zeek tools separately). No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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