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 mentions that it retrieves data from 'the latest scan' and includes default values for parameters, but it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how the data is structured (e.g., pagination, sorting). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, with each sentence adding value. However, the formatting with quotes and indentation is slightly verbose, and it could be more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, and the output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in 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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'max_paths' limits the number of paths returned, 'min_risk' filters by risk score with a range (0.0-1.0), and 'snapshot_id' specifies an optional snapshot. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could provide more detail on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 discovered attack paths from the latest scan.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('discovered attack paths'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_assets' or 'get_findings' by focusing on attack paths. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'explain_path' or 'compare_scans', which might be related, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 when to choose 'get_attack_paths' over 'explain_path' or 'compare_scans', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is to retrieve attack paths from scans, but this is basic and lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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