export_threat_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the operation is read-only with no side effects, that export runs server-side and may be slow for large models, that progress is reported automatically, and that CSV vs PDF/HTML returns content in different encodings. This goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 four sentences and every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, read-only guarantee, performance/progress caveat, format-specific encoding, and explicit sibling alternative. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively straightforward, the description provides all needed context: it states side effects, performance characteristics, encoding behavior, and points to the archive tool for a different use case. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already describes format and model_id, and the description adds meaningful behavior tied to the format parameter (inline UTF-8 for CSV, base64 for PDF/HTML). The server_version parameter is undocumented in the description, but that is the only gap; overall the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Export' with the resource 'a threat model' and explicitly names the supported formats (CSV, PDF, HTML). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling export_threat_model_archive by noting that the archive is for a re-importable audit bundle.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For a re-importable, fully self-contained audit bundle... use export_threat_model_archive instead.' It also provides practical context about server-side processing and progress reporting, helping the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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