get_attack_chains

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses the return contents but does not mention any behavioral traits like temporary exclusivity, authorization requirements, or potential staleness. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the core action and then clarifies what attack chains are. Very efficient.

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 zero parameters, presence of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return value sufficiently. Minor gaps: no mention of ordering, limit, or whether chains from multiple scans are aggregated, but 'from the last scan' provides temporal context.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and description adds no extra param info, which is acceptable.

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?

Clearly states it gets all detected attack chains from the last scan, defines attack chains as correlated findings forming exploitable paths, and distinguishes from siblings like get_findings by specifying the unique content (narrative, priority fix, breach cost estimate).

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?

Implies usage after a scan but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_findings or scan_aws. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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