oracle_submit_attack_path

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

Discloses that the path is 'energy-scored and forwarded to triage' but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides minimal behavioral context beyond immediate outcome.

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?

Exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an Args section with clear examples. No redundant information; the purpose and parameter format are front-loaded efficiently.

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 the tool has only one required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the input semantics and post-submission behavior adequately. Missing minor details about error handling or what 'energy-scored' entails, but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: for 'nodes', it explains the delimiter and provides an example; for 'description', it states it's optional. However, it doesn't specify constraints like string length or allowed characters.

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 action ('submit a discovered attack path') and specifies the exact format (chain of node descriptions separated by ' -> '). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'oracle_submit_matched_path' by emphasizing 'discovered' and the specific delimited format.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'oracle_submit_matched_path', 'validate_path', or 'escalate_path'. Lacks context about prerequisites, typical use case, or situations to avoid.

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