ism_list_by_classification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and allowed values, without revealing if the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists the allowed values. Every word earns 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?

Given the output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks information on result ordering, potential truncation, or whether the list includes all controls at that level. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but could benefit from clarifying the scope.

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 zero description coverage for the required parameter. The description adds the allowed values ('NC, OS, P, S, TS'), which provides essential semantic meaning beyond the raw string type.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'controls' with the specific filter 'at a given classification level'. It also enumerates the allowed values (NC, OS, P, S, TS), which distinguishes it from siblings that filter by topic, section, etc.

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 listing controls by classification level but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ism_list_by_topic or ism_list_sections. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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