map_frameworks

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: result cap of 20, filter option for detailed mapping, error response on invalid keys, and typical response token size. Adequate for a read-only mapping tool.

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?

Concise 4-sentence description: first sentence states purpose, second explains output, third gives use case and limitation, fourth provides error and size info. No redundant sentences.

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?

Description explains what the tool returns (satisfied requirements, gaps, 'not found'), typical response size, and error handling. Lacks output schema but enough for an agent to understand the mapping output.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the relationship between source_control and the result cap, providing usage context beyond schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states the tool maps controls between two frameworks using SCF, specifying it shows satisfied requirements and gaps. Distinguishes from siblings like get_framework_controls that list controls without cross-mapping.

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?

Describes use case (gap analysis, compliance mapping) and provides specific guidance: results capped at 20, use source_control for detailed mapping, and error behavior for invalid keys. Lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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