follow_threat_modeling_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states it returns a markdown guide and that phase is optional, indicating a read-only, informational tool. However, it does not explicitly state it does not mutate state or require prior setup, and the mention of 'ctx' for logging/error handling is vague.

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 concise and well-structured with a title, a short paragraph, and clear Args/Returns sections. It includes 'ctx' which is not in the schema, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it earns its place.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return format. It could improve by clarifying the relationship with get_phase_*_guidance tools, but no critical information is missing.

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 only schema parameter 'phase' is well described in the description: 'Optional phase to get guidance for (if not provided, will use current phase)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The 'ctx' arg mentioned in the description is not part of the input schema, which could cause confusion.

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 guides the user through the threat modeling process step by step, following the plan from get_threat_modeling_plan, and returns a markdown-formatted guide. It distinguishes from get_threat_modeling_plan by referencing it as the source of the plan, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_phase_X_guidance.

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 implies usage after generating a plan but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as get_phase_1_guidance or get_current_phase_status, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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