list_compliance_frameworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (list) but does not explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it explain any side effects, authentication needs, or scope (e.g., what 'available' means). With zero annotation support, the description is insufficient.

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?

The description is short (two sentences) but not sufficiently informative. While it avoids verbosity, it omits critical details about the required parameter and usage context, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

Although an output schema likely documents return values, the description does not explain the required 'server_version' parameter or any behavioral implications. For a tool with one required parameter and no annotation support, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'server_version' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool lists available compliance frameworks, with examples of built-in (OWASP ASVS) and custom frameworks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_compliance_framework or get_compliance_report.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_compliance_framework, get_compliance_report). The description does not mention prerequisites or context where listing is appropriate.

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