zeek_detect_beaconing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes analysis of jitter and scoring but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. This omission limits transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, followed by methodology and scoring meaning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values. It mentions scoring but not the structure or type of output (e.g., list of pairs). The 7 parameters are well-documented, but output expectations are vague.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'higher scores indicate more regular patterns') but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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: 'Detect potential C2 beaconing by analyzing connection interval regularity.' It specifically mentions finding source-destination pairs with consistent callback intervals, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zeek_detect_anomalies or zeek_detect_outliers.

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 beaconing but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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