list_stigs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the not-ready state return ({"status": "not_ready"}) instead of an error, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or the shape/ordering of the returned STIG list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the edge-case behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-param, no-output-schema list tool this is nearly complete: purpose, filter semantics, and the not-ready edge case are all covered. Only the return format of a successful call (fields, ordering, size) is left unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'filter' param is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does, explaining that the filter is a substring match against title, benchmark id (with a concrete example, RHEL_9_STIG), or product keywords — meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (STIGs in the knowledge base) and scopes it by the filter dimensions. An agent can immediately distinguish this read/list tool from siblings like search_techniques or mitigations_for_technique.

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 implies usage through the filtering options (title substring, benchmark id, product keywords) but never states when to prefer this over siblings or any prerequisite workflow. It does tell the agent what happens when the KB isn't built, which is useful context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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