framework_crosswalk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The core behavior is clear ('map ... to equivalent controls'), but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as what the output looks like, whether it is a read-only operation, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making this appropriately concise.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage adequately for its low complexity, but it does not describe the output structure or what 'equivalent controls' entail. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, with the single parameter 'tier' fully described in the schema including its enum values. The description adds only the term 'risk tier', which is already implied by the schema, so it provides no significant extra meaning beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('map') and the resource ('EU AI Act risk tier to equivalent controls in adjacent governance frameworks'), and it explicitly names the target frameworks. This distinguishes it from siblings like classify_ai_system and explain_tier, which focus on classification or explanation rather than cross-framework 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?

The second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks how the EU AI Act lines up with ISO 42001, NIST, GDPR, or their existing compliance program.' However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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