get_capability_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the return payload (nodes, edges with danger flag, attack paths, risk score), which provides useful transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites such as agent existence, or performance/caching behavior, leaving some gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the intent and packs all key return elements into a compact list. Every word contributes useful information, with 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 simple one-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture of what the tool returns. It covers the main output components and overall risk score, though it could mention error behavior or valid agent ID requirements for full completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter agentId with the description 'ID of the agent to inspect'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 primary action ('Return') and the specific resource ('the agent's capability graph'), enumerating its key components (nodes, edges, attack paths, risk score). This differentiates it from siblings like detect_attack_paths and apply_policy_fix, which suggest different operations (detection and modification).

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 this tool is for retrieving graph-based attack-path and risk information for a given agent, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like detect_attack_paths. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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