List Escalation Paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of scoping to a single policy, pagination behavior, or that results are filtered by a required parent ID.

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?

Three words with a single clause; this is under-specification rather than concision. There is no front-loaded scope statement or qualifier to anchor the agent before it inspects the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with five parameters, a required parent ID, two enums, and a crowded sibling set, the description leaves nearly everything an agent needs in order to call it correctly undocumented.

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 60%, below the 80% baseline, so the description must compensate—and it does not. The undocumented page_size/page_number parameters and the semantics of include/filter_path_type are explained only, if at all, inside the schema, and the description never mentions that escalation_policy_id is mandatory.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. Given a dense sibling cluster of escalation path tools (create/get/update_escalation_path, list_escalation_levels_paths), the agent is left to infer selection entirely from names.

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