Map security work onto an ADM phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does so by stating that the tool 'returns' a specific set of security guidance without implying mutations. The mention of questions that must be answered before leaving the phase adds useful behavioral context, though it does not describe output format or data source.

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 bilingual description is compact and front-loaded: it names the resource, the context, and all four output categories in two sentences. There is no filler or repetition beyond the intentional bilingual mirror.

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 read-only advisory tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough information to select and invoke it: the phase is clear, the output categories are enumerated, and the schema covers the remaining invocation details. It would benefit from examples or a note on how the output is structured, but these are not critical.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces that the phase is the central input, but it does not enrich the semantics of 'lang' or the accepted phase identifiers.

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 uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('security layers, questions, artifacts, and failures for a given ADM phase'), which clearly states what the tool does. It is clear enough to distinguish from general ADM tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling security tools such as threat_model_starter or security_requirements_checklist.

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 phrase 'For a given ADM phase' and 'before leaving the phase' provide a clear context for when to use the tool: during ADM phase work when security alignment is needed. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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