gb_cyber_list_frameworks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a simple read-only list operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, no mention of output format or any potential limitations.

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 with action and resource, followed by examples. No redundant words, front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema, description could specify return format (e.g., list of strings). However, for a simple listing tool, the provided information is fairly complete. Minor gap in not describing output structure.

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; schema coverage 100% with empty properties. Description adds no additional parameter info but doesn't need to. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this earns a 5 due to perfect clarity.

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?

Description clearly states action (list), specific resource (NCSC frameworks and guidance series), and provides examples (Cyber Essentials, 10 Steps, CAF). Distinct from sibling tools which focus on advisories, guidance, sources, etc.

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?

Implicitly clear when to use (to get list of frameworks), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references. Context with siblings makes it evident.

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