explain_attack_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that the tool distinguishes observed evidence (kev/epss/runtime) from estimates (cvss/severity/heuristic), which is a key behavioral trait an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It doesn't describe output format, but with no output schema and read-only semantics, the provenance explanation is the most important behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the full list of what's included, followed by a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, why to use it, and how to interpret the provenance field. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format or whether the response includes remediation steps, but the description's focus on the kill chain and provenance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter path_id is described as 'The id from list_attack_paths.' The description doesn't add much beyond that, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('attack path'), and enumerates exactly what the full kill chain includes: every hop, relationship type, probability, provenance, and MITRE technique. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_attack_paths by focusing on a single route's detailed breakdown.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before explaining or acting on a route' and explains why: the hop provenance tells you which parts are evidence and which are assumption. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with list_attack_paths (which lists paths) and routes_to_target (which finds routes).

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