Exposure Paths

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds context about the output being ranked and identical to dashboard objects, but does not disclose potential limits, error handling, or performance traits. It complements annotations without contradiction.

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 that deliver the core purpose and context without waste. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant user audience information. Every word earns its place.

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's complexity (4 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description provides sufficient context about the intended users and use case. The presence of an output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, making the description complete.

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%, so all four parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 tool returns ranked ExposurePath JSON for headless security agents. It mentions specific MCP clients and distinguishes itself as the 'agent-native graph surface', differentiating from siblings like blast_radius or context_graph. However, it could more explicitly contrast with similar graph tools.

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 indicates the tool is for headless agents and lists target clients, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blast_radius or graph_export. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given, only implicit context.

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