Assess Model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, makes no LLM calls, performs no mutation, and is deterministic. It also describes what the assessment computes and returns, including summary counts and progressive metrics. This goes well beyond the structured schema and gives the agent a confident mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, behavioral safety second, output summary third, alternative routing fourth, and a practical usage tip last. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant text repeating schema fields.

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?

The description is largely complete given the output schema exists and covers return values. It explains purpose, safety, result semantics, and the alternative tool. The only notable gap is that server_version is a required parameter with no schema description and no explanatory mention in the description, which is a small but real completeness gap for a required input.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents five of six parameters well. The description adds useful context for summary_only and reinforces the allowed status values. However, it does not help with server_version, the one parameter lacking schema documentation, and it adds no deeper semantics for limit, offset, or model_id 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the deterministic assurance assessment over a threat model.' It clearly explains what the tool evaluates and returns, and distinguishes itself from check_control_gaps by naming that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell exactly what assess_model does and what it does not do.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: for LLM-based reasoning about which control objectives are under-covered and what controls to add, use check_control_gaps instead. It also explains when to use summary_only=True. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, not just implied context.

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