threat_rules__framework_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a static, read-only reference lookup with no inputs, but does not state that it is side-effect free, whether the mapping is static or derived from a prior scan, or what the result looks like.

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 the frameworks named early and the proxy-report context in a trailing clause; nothing is wasted. The only cost is mild ambiguity in 'runtime findings,' which could be read as an input the tool does not actually accept.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives just a high-level notion of a mapping table. For a zero-param reference tool that is close to adequate, but an agent cannot tell the granularity of the mapping or whether findings must exist first.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description's implication that the mapping is a fixed reference rather than a query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it shows how GuardBee runtime findings map to two named frameworks (OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025, MITRE ATLAS). The scope is clear enough to separate it from evaluation tools like threat_rules__evaluate_event, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby reference tools such as owasp_scan__list_owasp_coverage or compliance_checker__compare_frameworks.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it is for looking up framework attribution after findings exist, but the description never says when to call it, what prerequisite state is needed, or which sibling to use instead. The clause about the guardbee-proxy report gives context but not selection guidance.

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