list_mitigations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the operation is read-only (listing), describes the return as 'a markdown-formatted list of mitigations', and discloses the optional filtering behavior. This is transparent for a list operation with no side effects.

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 clear main statement, followed by a Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no complex side effects, the description is complete. It covers purpose, filtering options, and return format. No output schema is shown, but the stated markdown return is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'type' and 'status' are explained as optional filters for mitigations. It goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions by specifying their role in narrowing the list.

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 'List all mitigations in the model' with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('mitigations'), and mentions it can be optionally filtered by type or status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mitigation (single item) and update_mitigation.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list all mitigations, optionally filtered by type or status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the filtering hints at use cases. No exclusions are stated.

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