list_threat_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It describes the return format (summary fields) and implies it's a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or scope (e.g., workspace vs. all systems). The parameter include_assessment_summary is not described in the description, only in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is stated first, followed by key output details. Structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 has 3 parameters (one required), a non-trivial return with an optional assessment summary, and an output schema. The description omits parameter behavior (especially server_version being required), scope of listing, and does not reference the optional boolean parameter. It is too sparse for effective agent usage.

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% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only describes the output. The required server_version parameter lacks explanation in both schema and description.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all threat models and returns a summary with ID, title, creation date, and version. The verb 'list' and resource 'threat models' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools, but the resource is distinct enough.

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?

Mentions using the model ID with other tools but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_model, get_threat_model, or other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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