list_anomalous_network_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are tenant-wide (across all orgs) and every result has a dashboard_url. It does not mention ordering, pagination, rate limits, or whether the tool is idempotent/safe. As a read operation, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The first sentence states purpose, the second defines key terms, and the third provides critical user-facing instructions. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions dashboard_url per detection, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the full return structure, typical fields, pagination, or ordering. For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, a 3 reflects adequate but not complete guidance for an agent.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by explaining the customer fallback behavior, default status filter, and that orgScope uses an owner-scoped endpoint. This enriches the schema beyond simple type/enum definitions.

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 'List anomalous outbound network-call detections' with a precise definition of 'anomalous' (not in Harden-Runner baseline). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_detections, list_blocked_domain_calls, and list_suspicious_process_events by focusing specifically on anomalous network calls.

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 notes that this is 'typically the most-used detection type during an investigation,' implying primary usage. It also provides explicit instructions to include clickable dashboard_url links per detection. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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