export_threat_model

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

The description discloses the async job execution, polling for completion, and progress reporting, which adds significant behavioral context beyond the missing annotations. It does not address authorization or potential side effects.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence adds value, though minor verbosity in the async explanation could be trimmed.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the async process and result retrieval. Missing error handling details, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 67%. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters format, model_id, and server_version, so baseline score applies.

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 exports a threat model in CSV, PDF, or HTML format, distinguishing it from siblings like export_threat_model_archive (which exports a full archive) and export_tag_report.

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 async nature of the export and the polling process, providing context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like export_threat_model_archive.

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