nemesis_list_frameworks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific scope ('every framework/stack') and the 'one-line integration' detail, but no additional behavioral traits such as output shape or potential edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb ('List') and directly states the resource. No extraneous words; every word adds value. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is almost complete. It could be slightly enhanced by explicitly stating what the returned list looks like (e.g., 'returns an array of framework names'), but the verb 'List' strongly implies that. Overall, sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is clear about the operation's scope, which serves the same purpose. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description fully compensates for any lack of schema detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('every framework/stack Nemesis Shield has a one-line integration for'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nemesis_list_apps or nemesis_omniguard_catalog, which target different resources.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or direct users to sibling tools for related tasks. The context is clear but not actionable for selecting among the many sibling tools.

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