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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that frameworks are "bundled" and lists returned metadata such as coverage, lineage, version, and digest, but it does not add deeper behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 that lists the returned information without filler. Every phrase contributes to clarifying the list contents.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only list tool with a rich output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly note that it lists all bundled frameworks, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List bundled framework IDs" plus the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_framework beyond the list-vs-get naming difference.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_framework or compile_disclosure. Usage is only implied by the phrase "List bundled framework IDs," with no conditions or exclusions.

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