find_escalation_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or what the output format is. The mention of 'ranks' and 'detects' implies analysis, but side effects and return structure are omitted.

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 with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists key supported features. Efficient, but could be slightly more front-loaded with output behavior.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core features but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., ranked list of paths). It also lacks prerequisite context (e.g., environment must be enumerated via `enumerate_host`).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context for parameters (e.g., 'stealth-priority ranking' corresponds to `stealth_priority`), but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Find and rank') and resource ('privilege escalation paths') and specifies the context ('in an enumerated environment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `find_token_abuse` and `find_container_escape`, which focus on specific subsets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as `discover_chains` or `find_token_abuse`. The description lists features but does not state when one would choose this tool over others.

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