paths_to_tier0

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. However, it only states the function without disclosing whether it is read-only, how paths are computed, or any side effects/limitations. This is a significant gap for a path enumeration tool.

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?

A single, focused sentence efficiently conveys the core function with no filler or unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to contextualize the three parameters, the meaning of 'shortest attack paths,' or how this tool relates to siblings like shortest_path and tier_zero. More detail is needed for a security analysis tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly explains 'source' as a principal, but leaves 'limit' and 'max_hops' completely unexplained. The schema only provides types and defaults, not meaning.

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 computes shortest attack paths from a principal to tier-0 objects, using a specific verb ('Shortest attack paths') and resource ('tier-0 object'). This distinguishes it from generic path tools like shortest_path and list tools like domain_admins.

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 you need attack paths to tier-0—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. It states the scenario but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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