attack_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as cost, permissions needed, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain.

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?

At 6 words, the description is very concise but may be under-specified. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices essential detail, making it less helpful despite being efficient.

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 has an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about how the returned data relates to security analysis and does not explain when this tool is appropriate.

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 input schema has one parameter 'session_id' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its purpose or how to use it. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 it returns 'detected entrypoints and trust metadata', giving a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tool 'entrypoint_paths_to', which also deals with entrypoints. The term 'trust metadata' is vague, and the overall purpose is not sharply defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'entrypoint_paths_to' or 'subgraph'. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer its sole use case.

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