query_threat_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers thoroughly. It declares 'Read-only; no side effects (no new version, no mutation)' and explains the AI-based behavior, grounding in 'assets, attackers, control objectives, assumptions, and current security posture,' plus the return shape '{model_id, answer}'.

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 three concise sentences with a clear structure: purpose, behavior/safety, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds distinct value with 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?

For a query tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, read-only safety, usage alternatives, and return format. The only minor omission is the `server_version` parameter, but this is a system-level constraint and does not affect the tool's core context.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters (67%), so the description must compensate but only adds grounding context rather than explicit parameter semantics. It does not clarify the purpose of `server_version`, and the existing schema descriptions for `model_id` and `question` already cover their meaning.

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 opens with 'Ask a natural-language question about an existing threat model,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further differentiates from siblings by directing users to 'refine_threat_model' for changes and 'get_threat_model / assess_model' for structured data.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this for interpretation or summary questions' and provides clear exclusions: 'Do NOT use it to change the model — use refine_threat_model for that — and prefer get_threat_model / assess_model when you need structured data.' This gives unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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