list_frameworks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add useful content semantics (frameworks plus control counts), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the list is static or tenant-scoped. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation tag and the core content, with zero filler. The framework names and the '+ control counts' addendum each earn their place by telling the agent what the output contains.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so adequately by naming the frameworks and noting the control counts. It is missing only minor details such as result ordering or how the counts are aggregated, which are unlikely to change the call decision.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-side baseline is a 4 and the description has nothing it must compensate for. It correctly avoids restating parameter details and instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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?

Names the specific resource (supported compliance frameworks) and enumerates the concrete values (HIPAA / PCI-DSS / SOC 2 / GDPR) plus an extra return element (control counts), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like coverage_summary or gap_analysis, but the resource is distinctive enough to be unambiguous.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery call for framework identifiers, and it is a zero-parameter listing so the invocation is self-evident. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to related siblings (e.g. coverage_summary, gap_analysis), leaving some guidance on the table.

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