analyze_attack_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the analytical nature (correlate findings), provides an illustrative example, and details the output structure. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention dependencies on an active engagement, but the phrasing implies a non-mutating analysis.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, an illustrative example, a usage note, and a parameter list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and return values (list of chains with name, escalated severity, narrative, steps, affected hosts). It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active engagement or pre-existing findings), but these are reasonably implied by the context. Given the moderate complexity, it is near-complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, allowed values (info/low/medium/high/critical for min_severity, low/medium/high for min_confidence), and the special behavior of an empty host. This far exceeds the schema's minimal titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Correlate current findings into multi-stage attack chains.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing compound risk and combining low/medium findings into high-impact paths, which is not duplicated in other tool descriptions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this at any point during an engagement to understand compound risk,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for single-finding analysis, so it lacks exclusions.

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