Return one bundled framework's required datapoints, mappings, sources, and framework-pack lineage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns data without side effects, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose any prerequisites, error conditions, or performance considerations.
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 concise sentence that avoids fluff. Every word adds value, effectively summarizing the tool's function.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the input parameter sufficiently. For a simple tool with one parameter, more context on parameter usage and the operation's nature (e.g., safe, idempotent) is expected.
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%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'framework' parameter. It fails to clarify what a 'framework' is (e.g., name, ID) or how to specify it, leaving ambiguity.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'one bundled framework's required datapoints, mappings, sources, and framework-pack lineage.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_frameworks by implying this is for a single framework's detailed info.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for retrieving details of a specific framework, but there is no mention of list_frameworks as the alternative for listing all frameworks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All five tools have distinct and clearly defined purposes: compilation, agent info, framework retrieval (detail and list), and verification. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Every tool uses snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (compile_disclosure, describe_agent, get_framework, list_frameworks, verify_result). No deviations.
Five tools cover the core capabilities of a disclosure compiler without redundancy. The scope is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: compilation, framework exploration, verification, and agent metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.