list_attack_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by warning that probabilities are expert estimates, not calibrated measurements, and by defining the meaning of score and priority.

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 compact: it states the purpose, defines the key output concepts, and adds a clearly separated important caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 list tool without an output schema, it explains the ranking, meaning of score, meaning of priority, and the trust caveat. It does not fully enumerate all possible route fields, but the essential behavior and call context are sufficiently covered.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully, so the description does not need to repeat them. It also does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ranked routes from internet exposure to a sensitive asset'), and states the ordering principle ('highest triage priority first'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like explain_attack_path or get_score_trust.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: call get_score_trust before presenting probabilities and prefer the ranking over absolute values. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives such as routes_to_target or explain_attack_path, but the usage context is clear enough.

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