discover_chains

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions that the tool produces 'coherent attack narratives with reasoning' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies the environment, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 of 20 words that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is relevant and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (multi-step chains, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'reasoning' entails, how to interpret results, or relationships between parameters like start_binary and end_goal. More context is needed for effective use.

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 for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: discovering multi-step attack chains that combine escalation, persistence, lateral movement, and exfiltration steps. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on individual steps.

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 for building composite attack narratives but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_escalation_paths or find_persistence_paths. The schema's chain_type enum provides some guidance, but the description lacks direct usage recommendations or exclusions.

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