List Compliance Frameworks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states 'Read-only; no side effects' and specifies the return scope: built-in frameworks (e.g. OWASP ASVS) plus any custom workspace frameworks. It could add slightly more nuance about the returned list's contents, but this is strong disclosure for a list tool.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, usage guidance, and parameters. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, behavior, workflow placement, and the parameter's role. Return-value details are covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% (server_version has no schema-level description), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is a 'version guard' and not a functional argument, which helps, but it does not specify the expected version value or format, leaving the agent to guess what to pass.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the compliance frameworks available to map controls against.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming select_compliance_frameworks (activate one) and import_compliance_framework (add a custom one) as the tools that follow on from this discovery call.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow: 'Use this to discover framework identifiers before select_compliance_frameworks ... or import_compliance_framework.' It names both alternatives with their purposes, so an agent knows exactly when to call this tool instead of the related ones.

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