build_attack_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it merely lists the mode options (already present in the schema) and does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or data safety. It lacks transparency about what happens to existing plans or whether the tool modifies state.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key phases. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is brief and does not explain the output format, how the environment_id is obtained, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., after using enumerate_host). It provides a high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and usage sequence.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including the mode enum and defaults. The description adds overall context but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Build structured attack plans from environment assessment'. It also lists the key phases ('plan generation, scoring, optimization, and export'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific findings rather than comprehensive plan building.

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 the tool is used after an environment assessment to create a plan, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals (required parameters 'environment_id' and 'objectives') hint at prerequisites, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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