get_trust_boundary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It accurately states the tool retrieves a trust boundary (likely read-only) but does not disclose error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. For a get operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to provide guidance on the undocumented parameter (server_version) and assumes the agent knows the format of tb_id. The description is functional but could be more helpful.

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%, with server_version lacking any description. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It misses the opportunity to explain the role of server_version, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 single trust boundary', specifying the verb (get) and resource (trust boundary). It also highlights the specific inclusion of the 'passes' set with a closed vocabulary, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_trust_boundary or get_asset.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or list_threat_models. However, the purpose is clear, and an agent can infer it is for retrieving a specific trust boundary. No exclusion criteria or context for alternative tools are provided.

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