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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are ranked worst first and include whether a path is proven by evidence. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, how the limit interacts with ranking, or what happens when no paths exist.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ranking behavior. The trailing field enumeration is useful because there is no output schema, and the wording does not contain obvious filler.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the core return fields and ordering, which is important given the absence of an output schema. It is nevertheless incomplete regarding the limit parameter's effect, pagination, and empty-result behavior.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the sole 'limit' parameter. The schema itself supplies bounds and a default, so the parameter is usable, but the description adds no meaning about how the limit affects returned ranked paths.

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 states a specific resource — ranked attack paths (toxic combinations) — and scope — across the workspace's connected clouds. It clearly distinguishes itself from findings-oriented siblings through the 'toxic combinations' framing, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 the tool is for reviewing attack paths and that results are ordered worst first, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison against siblings such as list_findings and get_security_overview.

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