nist-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the three detail levels (summary, standard, full) with token estimates, describes flexible ID format handling, and mentions the ability to include withdrawn controls. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains ID flexibility, the next three lines detail output levels, and the final sentence provides sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value.

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 (7 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details about output levels, parameter semantics for detail_level, and sibling differentiation. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on contextual information.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the semantic meaning of the 'detail_level' parameter (summary, standard, full) with token estimates, which the schema only lists as options. It also clarifies ID format flexibility, adding context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 searches NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 security and privacy controls by keyword, family, or baseline, with specific examples of flexible ID formats. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_control' tool by mentioning that tool provides complete detail for a specific control.

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 this tool versus alternatives: it states 'Use get_control for the complete detail of a specific control including enhancements,' clearly differentiating from the sibling tool. It also implies usage context through the detail level explanations.

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