get_security_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a template with placeholders, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, error handling, or whether the template is generated dynamically or static.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, framework list, and usage instruction. No superfluous words, but the list is redundant with the schema.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (structured starting template) and how to use it (replace placeholders). It could mention if the template varies by framework beyond the schema enum.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the enum values again (as frameworks) which adds no new meaning, and the placeholder instruction pertains to the output, not the parameter. The parameter's role is clear but not enriched.

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 it returns a structured starting template for a security framework attestation, listing specific frameworks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_questionnaire_response which handle different content.

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 only instructs to replace placeholders with specific facts, but does not provide guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_full_pack or search_questionnaire). No scenarios or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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