list_assessment_plans

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions listing with pagination, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, side effects, or the nature of 'summary metadata.' This is insufficient for a list tool without annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 list tool with pagination, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format (Page_Response dict with keys). It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but these are not critical for a read-only listing. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return structure.

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 only provides defaults and types, with 0% schema description coverage. However, the description compensates by clearly explaining offset ('Zero-based pagination offset') and limit ('Maximum items to return, 1-100'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'List loaded OSCAL Assessment Plans with summary metadata,' clearly identifying the resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assessment_plan_activities and list_assessment_plan_tasks which focus on sub-elements.

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 provides pagination details but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_assessment_plan or other list_ tools. No explicit context for selection is provided.

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