list_assumptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists assumptions and returns a markdown-formatted list, and it mentions the ctx parameter for logging/error handling. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether this is a read-only operation or describe behavior like ordering, pagination, or errors. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (per the context signal), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the filter, and the return format. It could mention read-only behavior or pagination, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

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 100% for the single 'category' parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds the phrase 'filter assumptions' and specifies the context parameter (ctx), but this is not a major addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('assumptions'), and scope ('in the threat model'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_assumption (which retrieves a single assumption) and add/update/delete operations. The optional category filter is also mentioned, making the tool's exact function unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when you need all assumptions rather than a single one, and optionally filter by category. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the contrast with get_assumption and the 'all' phrasing provide clear context for the appropriate use case.

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