List ISM groups (chapters and guidelines)

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states it returns hierarchical data without disclosing read-only nature, side effects, or performance implications. It fails to fully characterize behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 a single efficient sentence without wasted words, but it lacks structure like bullet points for clarity. Still, it is appropriately brief.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param coverage, the description omits return format, parameter details, and usage context. It is insufficient for a tool with two parameters.

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 description adds no meaning to the two parameters (version, maxDepth) despite 0% schema description coverage. Neither the description nor the schema explains their purpose, leaving the agent without understanding how to use them.

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 returns hierarchical group structure of the ISM catalog with control counts, distinguishing it from siblings like list_controls which returns control lists.

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 implies usage for exploring hierarchy but does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings like list_controls or get_control, lacking explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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