Map security scan findings to OWASP LLM 2025, NIST AI RMF, and MITRE ATLAS frameworks to identify coverage evidence.
Map a LLMSecurity scan report to OWASP LLM 2025, NIST AI RMF, and MITRE ATLAS coverage evidence. This is not a compliance certification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | A report object containing a findings list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention whether the tool performs read-only operations, has side effects, or returns a specific output. Since the tool is described as 'mapping' a report to frameworks, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated. The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency and falls short.
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 and to the point, with no redundant information. It clearly states the action, the target frameworks, and a critical caveat in a single sentence. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The description lacks important contextual details for an agent to use the tool correctly: it does not specify the output format (e.g., a report object, a list of mappings, a JSON structure), whether the input report must conform to a particular schema, or any examples. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the expected return value, but it does not.
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 only parameter 'report' is described as 'A report object containing a findings list,' which gives a basic idea but lacks detail about the required structure, such as field names or types. Since there is only one parameter and no enums or additional metadata, the description adds some value but does not fully clarify the expected input shape.
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's purpose: mapping an LLMSecurity scan report to OWASP LLM 2025, NIST AI RMF, and MITRE ATLAS coverage evidence. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scanning tools by focusing on mapping rather than scanning. A higher score would require specifying what 'coverage evidence' looks like.
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 when to use the tool (when you have an LLMSecurity report to map) and gives a negative constraint ('This is not a compliance certification'), but it does not provide explicit conditions, such as when to prefer this over other tools or what input format is expected. More concrete usage guidance would improve this dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.