threat_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the scope ('all checklists') and typical use cases, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations. For a search tool this is acceptable 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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, a usage sentence with examples, and a parameter definition. No filler; every sentence contributes.

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?

With only one simple parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could mention result ordering or that it searches only controls, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Adequate for the tool's 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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section clarifying 'query' as 'Threat or control to search for'. This compensates for the missing schema-level description and adds practical meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Search all checklists for controls that mitigate a given threat', using a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('all checklists'), and objective. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like checklist_list or checklist_get.

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance with examples ('prompt injection', 'credential theft', etc.) in the sentence 'Use this to find relevant controls for specific threats...'. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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