paths_from_owned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis tool but does not disclose how 'owned' is determined, whether it relies on pre-marked objects, or any permissions/side effects. It also does not mention pagination or the meaning of the optional parameters.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 tool has an output schema that documents return values, but the description lacks explanation of key domain concepts (what qualifies as 'owned', how paths are computed). Given the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in usage and parameter meaning.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain 'limit' or 'max_hops' at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: 'Shortest attack paths from any owned principal to tier-0.' It differentiates from siblings like paths_to_tier0 by explicitly focusing on owned principals, and the verb 'find/return' is implied. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage when the user wants attack paths starting from owned principals, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like paths_to_tier0 or shortest_path. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the scope is hinted.

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