calculate_data_exfiltration

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It describes the returned dictionary structure and flags for suspicious patterns, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which would be important in an unannotated context.

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, leading with a clear purpose statement, followed by an explanatory sentence, then neatly formatted parameter and return sections. Every line provides necessary information with no redundancy.

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 the tool's function, parameters, and return structure, and an output schema exists, so return values are further specified. It is slightly incomplete regarding prerequisites or relationships to other tools, but overall it provides substantial context for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter's purpose and defaults, including dest_ip's optional behavior and threshold_mb's meaning. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of information.

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 opens with 'Calculate data transfer volumes and detect potential exfiltration,' using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies 'Analyzes outbound data transfers to identify large or suspicious uploads,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'find_lateral_movement' or 'check_ioc_reputation'.

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 clearly states the tool's context: analyzing outbound transfers for a common final attack stage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar scenarios, so it lacks exclusions.

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