Cloud Attack Paths

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description adds the 'AGGRESSIVE — requires approval' trait, which is important behavioral information. It does not clarify other potential side effects, but this extra disclosure is valuable.

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 and well-structured. The action verb 'Build' appears in the first sentence, followed by a clear explanation of the output. No redundant information is included.

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 description explains the tool's purpose but lacks parameter semantics and does not describe the output structure beyond a high-level concept. Even though an output schema exists, it is not shown, and the description does not cover what the agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for parameters, and the description does not mention 'profile', 'max_hops', or 'provider' at all. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving these parameters undefined.

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 builds attack paths from cloud configuration, and explains the output as reachability from public entry points to privileged roles with hop counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_asset_discovery or cloud_permissions.

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 when you have a list of misconfigurations and need to assess severity via reachability. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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