List EV threats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond a generic 'all threats' statement; it does not disclose that the query parameter can filter results, nor does it mention pagination or return format. Since it adds no value beyond annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and resource immediately, making it easy to scan and process. No unnecessary details are included.

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?

Despite a simple surface, the tool has a nested query parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain filtering and return behavior. It does neither. The description fails to mention that the tool accepts a query filter, leaving a critical functional gap for agents invoking it correctly. The minimal description is inadequate for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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, and the only parameter 'query' is an object with additionalProperties, meaning arbitrary filters. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its structure and purpose. With zero compensation in the description, the parameter semantics are fully unexplained.

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 'List all Exposure Validation threats in the catalog' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Exposure Validation threats'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_threats_get (which fetches a specific threat) and cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters (which retrieves filter options). The scope is explicit ('in the catalog'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool is used when you need a catalog of all threats, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'for a single threat, use threats_get' or 'for filter options, use threats_get_filters', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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