list_threats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (markdown list) and that results can be filtered. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, though 'list' semantically implies this.

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 reasonably concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. It contains a slight redundancy between the first and second sentences, but the overall structure is clear and each section 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?

For a simple list tool with three optional filters and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the return format, the filtering capability, and parameter semantics. It lacks details like sorting or pagination, but these are likely not essential for this tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's purpose ('Optional category to filter threats'), which adds meaning beyond the bare names. Enums or value ranges would be richer, but it's adequate.

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's verb ('list'), resource ('threats'), and scope ('in the model'), and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes this from sibling list tools (list_mitigations, list_assets, etc.) by naming the specific resource.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list threats with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is unambiguous and implies when to use it.

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