list_frameworks

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

The description includes '[READ]' indicating read-only behavior, which is helpful given no annotations. It does not disclose caching, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the READ tag and clearly conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

Considering no parameters or output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the output includes control counts, which is the key information an agent needs.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and baseline is 4 per rubric.

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 clearly states the tool lists supported compliance frameworks (HIPAA, PCI-DSS, SOC 2, GDPR) and control counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_audit_sources which list audit sources instead.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are provided. However, the tool is simple with no parameters, so usage is straightforward. Some guidance comparing to coverage_summary or gap_analysis would improve this.

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