list_risk_acceptances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data returned (fields of each entry) but does not mention any behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or side effects. Given it is a read-only list operation, the description is adequate but lacks depth on limitations or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a use case. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has an output schema (not shown but noted), the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the purpose, context, and key fields. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., threat model existence, permissions) and does not explain the server_version parameter. For a simple listing tool, it is nearly complete but has minor gaps.

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 50% (only model_id has a description; server_version lacks one). The description adds context for model_id by saying 'on a specific threat model' but does not mention server_version at all. With moderate coverage, the description provides some added value but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 lists all risk acceptances on a specific threat model, defines what risk acceptances are (risks explicitly accepted instead of mitigated), and lists the fields returned (CO id, owner, justification, status, review deadline). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_attestations.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use to inspect which gaps were intentionally accepted versus genuinely unaddressed when triaging at-risk COs.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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