routes_to_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the choke point concept and the effect of cutting hops, which informs the agent's interpretation of results. It does not contradict annotations.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the analytical value proposition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and purpose.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and the meaning of its output (routes, choke points) without explicitly detailing return structure, which is acceptable given the tool's conceptual nature and the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter (k, from, target). The tool description references 'k best distinct routes' and 'named sensitive asset', which aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a precise action: 'Enumerate the k best distinct routes that reach a named sensitive asset.' It clearly identifies the resource (routes to a target) and the specific value it provides (answering 'how many ways in' and choke point analysis), distinguishing it from single-path views.

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 contrasts with 'single-path views' and explains when this tool is valuable (multi-route choke point analysis), implying that single-path tools (like list_attack_paths or explain_attack_path) are for different use cases. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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