Get Remediation Leverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, explains the returned structures, and highlights composed-model behavior: owner_model_id, owner_model_title, inherited flag, and summary.inherited_candidate_controls. This goes well beyond the schema and helps the agent understand side effects and ownership semantics.

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 information-dense but every section earns its place: core output, use case, and composed-model nuance. The front-loaded first paragraph gives the essential purpose and returns, while later details address edge cases. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is logical and not padded.

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 tool complexity and existing output schema, the description covers the main outputs, the use case, read-only behavior, and composed-model edge cases. The only notable gap is the missing semantics for server_version, which would matter for an agent trying to invoke this correctly in varied environments.

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 only describes model_id as 'ID of the threat model' and leaves server_version undescribed. The tool description does not clarify server_version at all and adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. With 50% schema description coverage, this leaves one required parameter semantically opaque.

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 that this tool returns a remediation-leverage plan ranking controls by leverage and a greedy minimal fix order. It is specific about the resource (a model) and the output shape (ranked, greedy_plan, summary), making it distinguish itself functionally from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative tool.

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 says 'Use to prioritize implementation work' and explains that a single call gives the shortest path to coverage, contrasting with fixing objectives one at a time. It gives clear context for when to call this tool, but does not discuss when not to use it or name a specific alternative tool.

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