baseline_normal_behavior

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 mentions creating a behavioral profile and returning a dictionary, but does not disclose whether this operation writes to any store, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a security tool, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a purpose sentence, then concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters well, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, given the lack of annotations, it is incomplete regarding prerequisites (e.g., data availability, permissions) and behavioral traits (side effects, state changes). More context is needed for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the Args section in the description is essential. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'entity: Entity to profile', 'metrics: List of metrics to baseline') and notes defaults. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some format details (like timeframe syntax) are left vague.

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 states 'Learn and establish normal behavior baseline for a user, host, or service' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies it creates a behavioral profile for detecting deviations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_anomalies, which focus on detection rather than baseline creation.

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 the tool is used to establish a baseline before detecting deviations or insider threats, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like detect_anomalies or identify_rare_events. There is no exclusion guidance or named alternatives, only the implied context of baseline creation.

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