oscal_assessment_results

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the export's content (reviewed-controls, observations, props) and notes the integrity self-check. It also clarifies the sealed/unsealed access behavior. However, it does not mention if any state is modified or if permissions are required beyond the api_key.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first covers purpose and content, the second covers access conditions. No redundant or extraneous information, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the output format (OSCAL assessment-results with listed components) and handles the api_key condition. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately describes what the agent can expect. The tool's complexity is moderate, and all relevant aspects are addressed.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of api_key (required for unsealed runs), which the schema does not elaborate. However, the schema already describes the parameters adequately, so the addition is helpful but not essential.

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 specifies a concrete action: exporting a governed run's evidence as a NIST OSCAL assessment-results document, listing the included components (reviewed-controls, observations, props). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which perform different functions like browsing topics or checking compliance.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when the api_key parameter is needed (for still-open runs) and distinguishes sealed vs. open runs. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when to choose it over alternatives, though the unique OSCAL output implicitly sets it apart.

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