list_threat_vectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits might apply, what format the results come in, or whether the listing is paginated (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by providing necessary context. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, but here there's insufficient information to justify even the minimal length.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what threat vectors are in this context, how they relate to other resources, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably returns security-related data, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 threat vectors' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what threat vectors are in this system, what format they come in, or what scope is covered. While it does contain a verb ('List') and resource ('threat vectors'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this from similar listing tools in the sibling set.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like list_security_findings, list_cloud_resources, and list_k8s_resources, there's no indication of how threat vectors relate to these other resources or when an agent should choose this specific listing tool. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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