get_threat_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the presence of soft-deleted(asset/attacker) and tombstone(control objective) markers, instructs how to treat them, and mentions restore_entity. It is a read-only getter, but that is implicit from the name and purpose, so no contradiction.

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 moderately sized but well-structured with a clear first line, a list of returned components, and a bolded, bulleted 'Important' section. Every section adds value, but the redundancy of 'full threat model' and the list could be trimmed slightly. Still, it is efficiently organized.

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 (not shown), the description need not detail return format. The description adequately covers the key nuances of soft-deleted and removed entities, which are essential for correct agent interpretation. It is complete for a getter tool in a complex domain.

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 description does not add semantic detail to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 75% (server_version undocumented), but the uncovered parameter is likely a system version. The description's focus is on output interpretation, not parameters, so it meets the baseline for a getter with straightforward parameters.

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 'Get a specific threat model by ID.' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned components (trust boundaries, assets, attackers, etc.). It differentiates from list_threat_models (which likely returns summaries) and other getters like get_entity by focusing on the full model.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on interpreting soft-deleted and removed entities, with instructions to exclude them from current state and include only for history/restore. It also names restore_entity for restoration. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like get_entity, but the purpose is clear enough to be self-contained.

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