Ingest findings

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

The description adds context about the types of data loaded (findings, assets, attack paths) and indicates the tool constructs an engine. Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not contradict them, but it does not disclose deeper side effects like idempotency or data replacement.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resources, with no redundant or filler words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core function adequately. It does not mention prerequisites like running setup first, but the pipeline context and sibling tools make this a minor omission.

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 only parameter 'source' is fully documented in the schema with allowed values and a default. The description's phrase 'from a source' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and identifies the resources (findings, assets, attack paths) and the goal ('build the engine'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chokepoint_setup or chokepoint_rank, which serve different pipeline stages.

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 the tool is the ingestion step in the chokepoint pipeline (loading data to build the engine). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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