get_attack_paths

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 organized with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is relatively concise, though the blank lines and full docstring format could be slightly trimmed for an MCP description.

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?

Given no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value structure. It mentions risk scores, confidence, and traversed assets, providing enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the description provides defaults and a range for min_risk (0.0-1.0), explains max_paths and snapshot_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though more detail on snapshot_id would improve clarity.

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 gets 'discovered attack paths from the latest scan', specifying the verb 'get', the resource 'attack paths', and the context 'latest scan'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assets or get_findings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_path or get_scan_summary. The description implies it is for the latest scan, but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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