compliance_frameworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a redundant '[READ][risk=low]' tag without new safety info. However, it does add context about the output containing 'current iaiops status' and positions the tool as a companion to compliance_mapping with a different perspective, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, detailed mapping explanation, return schema, and example. Every sentence contributes meaning without fluff, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, return format, example invocation, and relationship to the sibling compliance_mapping. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the detailed dict structure provided in the description.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, the description adds value by showing an example call `compliance_frameworks()` and detailing the return dict structure. This clarifies that no arguments are needed and what the response will contain, fully compensating for the 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 clearly states the tool's function: cross-framework mapping between 防护指南, 等保 2.0, and IEC 62443. It explicitly distinguishes itself from compliance_mapping by noting it provides a high-level crosswalk for answering which clause satisfies what, making it a distinct sibling tool.

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 usage guidance: 'use this to answer which 等保 / 62443 clause does this satisfy'. It also names compliance_mapping as the alternative for per-control gaps, offering clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use direction.

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