packet_detect_beacons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses detection methodology (time-delta variance, CoV, jitter%, median interval), benign infrastructure filtering, and confidence ratings (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW). However, it does not state read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or output format, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core detection technique and followed by filtering and confidence details. No redundant or filler language; every part earns its place.

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 packet analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains detection logic and confidence output but omits crucial input requirements (at least one of input or filePath is needed despite zero required parameters) and the return structure. This is adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions filtering benign infrastructure (relating to includeBenign) and confidence ratings, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb 'Detects' and resource 'periodic C2 beacon communications', plus the statistical method used. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling packet_detect_dns_tunneling or clarify how it relates to other packet_* 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to choose this over packet_detect_dns_tunneling). Usage is only implied by the tool name and detection purpose.

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