cyntrisec

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'detailed breakdown' with 'each hop explained,' which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits or side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by clear parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values) and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: it explains the purpose, parameters, and output nature. However, it lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency (e.g., safety or performance traits), which are minor gaps in an otherwise complete description for a read-focused tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining 'path_id' as 'The attack path ID to explain' and 'snapshot_id' as 'Optional snapshot ID (default: latest),' clarifying their roles and default behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure), keeping it from a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed explanation of an attack path.' It specifies the verb ('Get detailed explanation') and resource ('attack path'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain_finding' or 'get_attack_paths', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'explain_finding' (for individual findings) or 'get_attack_paths' (for listing paths), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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