apmx_correlate_handles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It describes the high-level operation but omits details like read-only status, required permissions, performance impact, or limitations (e.g., what happens if handles are not found).

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 sentences, each adding value: purpose, mechanism, and example. Front-loaded with main action. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and outcome (attack chains) but does not specify return format, pagination hints, or error cases. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, e.g., mentioning 'common injection/evasion APIs' is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool tracks handle values across API calls to reconstruct operation chains, with specific examples of producing and consuming APIs and attack chains. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apmx_get_calls and apmx_detect_patterns by focusing on handle correlation.

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 (to trace handle propagation and reveal attack chains), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like apmx_get_calls or apmx_injection_info.

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