Compare a framework with TOGAF

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state that the tool returns a table, which implies a read-only query, and it enumerates the table contents. It does not address failure behavior, unknown framework IDs, or data sources, so coverage is decent but not complete.

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?

One Japanese sentence and one English sentence deliver the same complete information with no filler, and the output dimensions are listed compactly. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, including the bilingual pairing.

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 simple two-parameter tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent should expect: a table with five named dimensions. No critical information is missing for selecting or invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents framework and lang. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying 'named framework', which matches schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('返す' / 'returns') and names the exact resource: a side-by-side table of TOGAF versus the named framework, with five concrete viewpoints. This differentiates it from siblings like archimate_vs_togaf and recommend_frameworks by making the comparison object and output explicit.

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: call when you need a structured TOGAF comparison for an arbitrary framework. However, it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as recommend_frameworks or archimate_vs_togaf, leaving the choice to inference.

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