analyze_lateral_movement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'one-shot' and the input options, but does not describe side effects, safety profile, performance impacts, or what the tool does with the session/PCAP. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely processes network evidence.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's essence and input mechanism.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what analysis entails and what the agent can expect in return. It does not mention output format, key indicators, or limitations, leaving the agent under-informed for a moderately complex analysis task.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that either session_id or pcap_path can be used ('or'), which suggests mutual exclusivity and guides parameter selection beyond the individual field descriptions. This lifts it above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'one-shot lateral movement analysis' with specific protocol types (SMB/NTLM/RDP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detect_port_scan or analyze_rdp_attack_chain by focusing on lateral movement across multiple protocols.

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 phrase 'one-shot' implies a single-pass execution, and 'accepts session_id or pcap_path' gives some input context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over alternative analysis tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is largely implied by the name rather than stated.

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