cf_get_targeted_paths

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full weight. It discloses the Free plan limitation (1-day window), how day>1 behaves, and the leak detection logic (2xx/3xx on sensitive path = FUITE, 5xx = anomaly). This fully informs the agent about behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences. First front-loads purpose and detection logic; second adds crucial usage constraint. No wasted words; every piece 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuances, and parameter usage well. It does not describe return format, but the tool's output is likely a list of paths with status info, inferable from context. Considered complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds significant extra meaning for the 'days' parameter by explaining the Free plan constraint and looping behavior, exceeding what the schema provides. No extra info for 'zone' or 'limitPerDay' but schema already describes them.

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 finds attack-targeted paths with leak detection (FUITE/anomalie). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cf_get_traffic or cf_get_threats_by_country by its specific focus on path-level security analysis.

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?

Provides clear context: indicates when to use (detect leaks/anomalies) and gives a specific usage tip for the Free plan (days=1 exact, days>1 loops). Does not explicitly mention alternatives but is sufficient for understanding when to invoke.

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