explain_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a 'detailed breakdown' but lacks specifics on behavior, side effects, or limitations (e.g., no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, or performance).

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 concise but includes an Args section and a Returns line, which is acceptable. However, the Returns line is redundant given an output schema exists. Slight front-loading with the main purpose is good.

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 is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core purpose and parameters but lacks usage context or edge case handling.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: path_id is 'The attack path ID to explain' and snapshot_id is 'Optional snapshot ID (default: latest)'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is valuable context beyond the property names.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed explanation of an attack path.' It clearly identifies the resource (attack path) and the action (explain), distinguishing it from siblings like 'explain_finding' and 'get_attack_paths'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'explain_finding' or 'get_attack_paths'. It does not mention contextual cues or exclusion criteria.

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