zeek_suspicious_http

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it returns all matching events or aggregated results, or any limitations like performance or scope. The description only lists what patterns are detected.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet list of suspicious patterns) but is efficient and clear.

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 no output schema and low tool complexity (2 parameters), the description is adequate for a find tool but does not explain return format (e.g., is it a list of events with key fields?). It covers the purpose but misses some context like expected results or limitations.

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% (timeFrom and timeTo have clear ISO 8601 descriptions). The tool description adds context that the time range filters the suspicious HTTP activity found, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'suspicious HTTP activity', then lists specific types (POSTs to raw IPs, unusual user agents, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zeek_query_http which likely returns all HTTP events.

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 finding suspicious HTTP activity, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., zeek_query_http for detailed queries, suricata_correlate_zeek for cross-correlation). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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