zeek_long_connections

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose how 'unusually long-lived' is determined, whether it's read-only, output format, or time range behavior. For a filtering tool, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 single concise sentence with no wasted words. It focuses on the tool's purpose and threat relevance. Could benefit from slight restructuring to front-load key details, but still 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., connection records). It does not mention return structure, pagination, or how results are ordered. Incomplete for a query tool with four parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., minDuration, timeFrom, etc.). No extra semantics.

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 it 'find[s] unusually long-lived connections' and adds threat context (C2 beacons, tunnels, persistent backdoors). It differentiates from siblings like zeek_detect_beaconing by focusing on longevity, but does not explicitly distinguish from all similar 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for detecting persistent backdoors, but does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings like zeek_connection_summary or zeek_detect_anomalies.

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