assess_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, has no LLM calls, and can return summary counts or per-CO details. It implies a safe read operation. It could add more about prerequisites or side effects, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 very concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose, then add detail about output, deterministic nature, and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main purpose, deterministic behavior, and a usage option. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., model must exist) or error cases, but is largely complete for an assessment tool.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'summary_only' usage, which is already documented in the schema, and adds no new meaning to other parameters like 'limit', 'offset', or 'status'. The deterministic note is not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states the tool runs an assurance assessment on a threat model, evaluates control objectives, and returns summary and metrics. It uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('threat model'), distinguishing it from many sibling tools that involve adding, editing, or deleting.

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 explains the output (summary and metrics) and provides a usage tip (summary_only=True). It also notes the deterministic nature. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reevaluate_threat_model_factors' or 'get_sufficiency', which could be similar.

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