export_threat_model_archive

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the operation is read-only with no side effects, that it runs as a backend job that waits and fetches results, and it details the archive contents and standalone verification methods. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence earns its place. The description is well-structured, moving from purpose to execution behavior to content/verification details and finally to tool comparisons. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids 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?

The tool is complex, involving a backend job, cryptographic verification, and interaction with sibling tools. The description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, what the archive contains, how it verifies, and how it relates to import/export tools. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed, and the description still notes the returned envelope.

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 covers only 50% of parameters (model_id has a description, server_version does not). The tool description does not clarify server_version's role or format, which is needed given the low schema coverage. While model_id is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Export' and resource 'self-contained JSON audit archive for a threat model', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling export_threat_model by explicitly contrasting a machine-verifiable archive with a rendered document.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: it states the archive is for machine-verifiable snapshots, points to import_threat_model_archive for restoration, and directs users to export_threat_model when a rendered document is needed. It also describes the backend job behavior, setting expectations for execution.

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