find_token_abuse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'analyzes' and 'maps', which suggests it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly confirm this or mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose and scope without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could be slightly improved by splitting into two sentences for readability.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but lacks details about return format, data sources for mapping, or prerequisites beyond environment_id. Sibling tools context is similar, so some additional context on expected output would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (environment_id and token_type). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, as it only restates that token privileges are analyzed. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 analyzes Windows token privileges and maps them to abuse techniques, potato attacks, and LOL binaries for privilege escalation. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'map') and resources ('token privileges', 'abuse techniques'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_escalation_paths' or 'find_com_abuse' by focusing specifically on token privileges.

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 usage after enumeration ('in an enumerated environment'), but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, though the requirement of an environment_id is clear.

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