zeek_ssh_bruteforce

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the detection logic (counting failed attempts, applying a threshold) but does not clarify behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or return format. It is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key constraint (threshold). No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not specify the output format (e.g., list of IPs, counts) or any side effects. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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%; all three parameters (timeTo, timeFrom, threshold) have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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's purpose: detect SSH brute force attempts by identifying sources with repeated failed authentications exceeding a threshold. It uses a specific verb (detect) and resource (SSH brute force), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zeek_query_ssh (generic querying) and suricata_* (different engine).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as zeek_query_ssh or other detection tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical scenarios.

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