ism_list_by_classification

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns a summary with ids only, and that an unknown level fails. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it could mention the return type more formally.

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 concise, with three sentences each adding distinct value: purpose, parameter guidance, and return/error behavior. Front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists controls by classification, returns a summary format, and errors on invalid input. It could be more explicit about the identifiers' nature, but overall it is complete for a simple listing tool.

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 explains the classification parameter in detail, including allowed values and a hint to another tool for mapping. However, it omits any explanation of the optional version parameter. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should cover both parameters.

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 it lists controls by classification level. The verb 'list' and resource 'controls' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like ism_get (full records) and ism_list_by_topic (filter by topic).

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?

It specifies that classification takes canonical abbreviations and directs to ism_list_classifications for the mapping. It also instructs to use ism_get for full records. While it does not explicitly contrast with ism_list_by_topic, the purpose is clear enough for the agent to choose correctly.

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