query_assessment_plan

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns a Page_Response dict with pagination details, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but it is clear about the output structure and pagination behavior.

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 summary, a brief explanatory sentence, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides complete context: purpose, query types, parameter details, and return format. It sufficiently covers all aspects needed for correct invocation despite the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates excellently by detailing each parameter: query_type with its enum values and usage, query_value dependency, offset default 0, and limit range 1-100. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Query OSCAL Assessment Plan documents' and explains the purpose of assessment plans. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_assessment_plans by offering filtered query types (by_uuid, by_title, by_type), making the specific verb and resource distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each query_type and that query_value is required for by_uuid, by_title, by_type. It also explains pagination parameters offset and limit. However, it does not mention alternatives like list_assessment_plans for simpler use cases, so it lacks exclusions.

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