Api frameworks used retrieve

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

The phrase "viewed or edited" implies a writable endpoint, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict, and the description adds nothing about what the endpoint actually returns or the scope of the "used" relationship.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from boilerplate rather than discipline — the one sentence present conveys no tool-specific information and leads with generic framing instead of the discriminating detail.

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?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about the return shape, the meaning of "used", or prerequisite context. For a zero-arg retrieval endpoint whose name is ambiguous among dozens of framework endpoints, the description should carry that load and does not.

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 for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies.

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 is generic Django-REST-Framework boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows frameworks to be viewed or edited") that essentially restates the tool name. It never explains the distinguishing qualifier "used" — used by what (a compliance assessment, perimeter, library, risk matrix?) — which is the only thing separating this from siblings like frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_list, or frameworks_object_retrieve.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many closely named siblings (frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_list, frameworks_object_retrieve, frameworks_names_retrieve, risk_matrices_used_retrieve). An agent seeing only this text has no basis for choosing.

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