detect_attack_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic and returns severity and risk score, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only nature), permissions, or potential impacts, leaving some ambiguity for a detection tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it returns. It does not explain prerequisites or integration with sibling tools, but for a straightforward detection operation with clear output, it is sufficiently 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% with agentId described as 'ID of the agent to inspect.' The description's 'for an agent' reiterates this but adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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's function: running a deterministic toxic-capability-combination detector for a given agent and returning attack paths with severity and an overall risk score. This specific verb-resource pairing and output details distinguish it from sibling tools like get_capability_graph or apply_policy_fix.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to detect attack paths for an agent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to infer its purpose relative to siblings. No contradicting usage guidance is given.

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