find_lateral_movement

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

The description mentions it uses 'LOL binaries' but provides no behavioral details such as safety, permissions needed, or whether it modifies state. With no annotations, the description should have elaborated on what happens during execution or any side effects.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., need for environment_id from enumerate_host), or how to effectively combine parameters. More details would help an agent use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already explained structurally. The description adds little beyond listing protocols (already in enum). It ties protocol_filter to the tool's purpose but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or usage.

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 finds lateral movement techniques using LOL binaries and lists specific protocols (SSH, WinRM, SMB, RDP, credential reuse, WMI). This distinctively identifies its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like find_wmi_abuse or find_credential_access.

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 use for exploring lateral movement but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., find_wmi_abuse, find_credential_access). It lacks when-not conditions or context-specific recommendations.

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