query_oscal_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns a dict from a knowledge base but does not confirm idempotency (no side effects), required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. For a query tool, such disclosures are important.

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 two short paragraphs and a structured Args/Returns block. It front-loads the purpose. However, the code block for Args/Returns slightly breaks flow but still maintains clarity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks behavioral details and parameter guidance, and does not clarify how this tool relates to the many similar sibling query tools. More context on the scope of 'OSCAL-related documentation' would improve completeness.

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, 'query', has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds only 'Question or search query about OSCAL', which provides minimal semantic value. It lacks format examples, constraints, or context that would aid the agent in constructing a good query.

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 queries OSCAL-related documentation and distinguishes it from the get_schema tool. However, it does not differentiate from other query_* tools or text_search_oscal, which are siblings; a more precise scope (e.g., general documentation vs. specific model queries) would improve clarity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use when schema analysis fails, and recommends get_schema for explicit property questions. This is helpful, but it omits guidance relative to other sibling query tools (e.g., query_catalog) or text_search_oscal, leaving potential ambiguity.

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