Framework Lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior; 'look up' signals a read-only operation, which is helpful. It does not mention error handling, what happens when an unsupported framework is passed, or whether topic is required or optional beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but the schema and output schema compensate for parameter and return-value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description only restates the framework examples already present in the schema. It adds no new meaning about the topic parameter or accepted value formats.

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 names a specific action ('look up') and resource ('quality framework') with concrete examples (ISO 25010, TMMi), making the tool's intent clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Use is implied: an agent would choose this when asked for information about ISO 25010 or TMMi. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to similar sibling tools like maturity_assessment or quality_recommendations.

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