oracle_submit_matched_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It tells what must happen before (prerequisite) but does not disclose behavioral traits: whether the submission is destructive, creates records, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap.

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 the action front-loaded. No wasted words, and it includes a key prerequisite.

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 is minimal for a submission tool. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., what submitting does, how it affects the threat model), nor does it cover return values (though output schema exists, it's not visible). More context is needed for effective agent use.

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 only parameter is 'description' (optional). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which has no description field. At 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should explain the purpose or constraints of the parameter, but it does not.

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 attack paths') and the resource ('from the current threat model's matched nodes'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like oracle_submit_attack_path (single path) and oracle_tm_match (matching).

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires tm_match or tm_match_refine to have been run first'). This gives clear context for when to use, but does not mention when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling names imply alternatives.

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