list_branch_attack_paths

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

No annotations are provided. The description describes the tool as listing raw JEPA output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, pagination, rate limits, or side effects beyond the implied read nature. For a list operation, it is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description covers purpose but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. Output schema exists (though not visible), so return values are not required. However, given the missing behavioral context and parameter semantics, completeness is only adequate.

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% (branch_id has no description in schema). The description mentions 'branch' but does not clarify what branch_id is (e.g., ID or name) or provide format constraints. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 lists attack paths on a branch, with specific context (pre-triage, raw JEPA output). It distinguishes from siblings like list_attack_paths (no branch filter) and get_attack_path (single path).

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 raw, pre-triage data on a branch but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., list_attack_paths or get_attack_path). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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