select_compliance_frameworks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it triggers background auto-remediation (auto-maps controls, excludes non-applicable requirements, suggests/applies new entities) and includes auto_remediate_jobs that run and complete automatically. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and requirement, second and third explain behavior and side effects. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (selection triggers background jobs) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be fully explained), the description covers key behaviors and side effects. It is mostly complete but could mention potential errors or success indications.

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 67% (model_id and framework_ids described). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, and server_version remains undescribed. It provides context for the overall action but no extra parameter semantics.

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: 'Select compliance frameworks for a threat model.' It uses specific verb (select) and resource (compliance frameworks) and distinguishes from siblings like select_system_compliance_frameworks by specifying 'for a threat model'.

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 description mentions a usage condition (PRO tier) and explains that selecting triggers auto-remediation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool vs. alternatives like select_system_compliance_frameworks or auto_remediate, leaving some ambiguity.

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