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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return scope (only active custom frameworks, built-ins excluded), but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination for a list operation.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the exclusion clause immediately follows to bound expectations. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and result scope adequately. It could say a bit more about what a returned framework contains, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description adds no meaning about project_id beyond its self-descriptive name and uuid format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the lone identifier parameter is near self-evident from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the active custom frameworks of a project') and scopes it precisely by excluding the built-in ICE/PIE/RICE frameworks. This clearly separates it from hypotize_framework_create and the built-in framework concept, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement: use this to enumerate a project's custom frameworks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternative hypotize_framework_create for creating frameworks, so the routing value is only moderate.

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