oscal_assessment_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: returns inline, includes summary and limitations, deterministic UUIDs, and three specific OSCAL limitation workarounds (import-ap point, unresolved control ids, partial satisfaction handling). This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the input schema.

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?

Description is front-loaded with [READ] and the core purpose, then uses each sentence to disclose consequential behavior. The length is justified by the lack of annotations and the need to explain uncommon OSCAL limitation handling.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return format, summary/limitations, determinism, param origin, and edge-case behavior. Nothing critical appears missing for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 coverage is 0% but the single parameter is described in Args: 'Path to a bundle .json (from list_bundles)'. This adds type/provenance beyond the raw string schema, though it does not elaborate further.

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?

Opens with '[READ] A sealed bundle as an OSCAL 1.2.3 Assessment Results document', naming a specific verb (read/convert) and resource. It distinguishes itself from export_bundle by noting writing a file is export_bundle's job.

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?

Explicitly names export_bundle as the sibling for file writing and points to list_bundles for obtaining bundle_path. This gives clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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