find_lateral_movement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool analyzes various behavioral signals and returns a dictionary with risk score, indicators, timeline, affected hosts, and recommendations. This implies a read-only analysis operation, and the output structure is transparent. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the analysis nature makes these less critical.

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 with a one-sentence summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the content is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise while covering all necessary aspects.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, each parameter's semantics, and the exact structure of the return value. This is comprehensive for an analyst to understand what the tool does and what it returns, requiring no additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively: source_ip is 'IP address of potentially compromised host', time_window is 'Time window to analyze' with default '-7d', and threshold is 'Minimum number of unique destinations to flag' with default 5. These explanations go beyond the raw schema types and clarify each parameter's purpose.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Detect lateral movement patterns from a potentially compromised host.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like pivot_by_ip or calculate_data_exfiltration by focusing on lateral movement identification.

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 provides clear context for use: analyzing authentication attempts, rapid connections, privilege escalation indicators, and unusual protocols to spot lateral movement typical of advanced threats. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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