zeek_software_inventory

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it lists data but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or whether it can be destructive. For a listing tool, it likely is safe, but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a common use case.

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?

For a simple listing tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the source (Zeek protocol analysis) and use cases, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or limitations. Given no annotations, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 all 4 parameters described (host, timeTo, timeFrom, softwareType). The tool description does not add extra detail beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists detected software and versions from Zeek's protocol analysis, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'detected software and versions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zeek_dns_summary or zeek_query_http by focusing on software inventory.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for asset discovery and vulnerability assessment', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or compare with alternatives, though sibling tools are different enough.

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