Rank chokepoints

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

Annotations only state non-destructive and non-read-only, adding little. The description goes beyond this by explaining the key behavioral trait: chokepoint value is marginal (what it eliminates given higher-ranked items are done) and that finding-risk and attack-path disruption are reported separately, not blended. This is valuable context for interpreting results.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core action and result. The second sentence adds essential algorithmic nuance without extraneous detail. Every word contributes useful information.

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 only one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides a coherent conceptual model: greedy ranking with marginal values and separate metrics. It does not mention prerequisites such as prior ingestion or planning steps, but the sibling tool list and the phrase 'over synthesized actions' offer some context. Slightly incomplete on workflow placement.

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% for the single optional 'top' parameter, whose description 'How many chokepoints to select' is clear. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, but it is not needed given the schema already 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 title 'Rank chokepoints' combined with 'Returns the shortlist' and the mention of chokepoints being 'ranked above it' clearly indicate the tool produces an ordered selection of chokepoints. The algorithm name 'Greedy weighted max-coverage' is specific but somewhat opaque, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like chokepoint_plan, chokepoint_payload, or chokepoint_mark_executed. The phrase 'over synthesized actions' implies it should be used after action synthesis, but the description does not state this prerequisite or any alternatives.

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