mapping_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It does state that the tool returns all matching checklist items and implies a read-only lookup operation. Yet it does not mention failure modes, authorization requirements, or any limitations beyond the listed framework names, leaving the behavioral profile somewhat incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a short explanation of the return value and a compact 'Args' section listing the parameter and allowed values. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with one parameter and a present output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, the parameter's allowed values, and the nature of the return data, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No additional context is needed.

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 schema for 'framework' is only a string with no enum or description, giving 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact allowed values ('nist-rmf', 'owasp-llm', 'atlas', 'custody', 'lasm') and explaining what the parameter selects, providing complete parameter semantics.

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 with the verb 'look up' and identifies the resource as 'security controls mapped to a specific framework.' It explicitly enumerates the supported frameworks (NIST AI RMF, OWASP, CUSTODY, LASM, MITRE ATLAS), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like checklist_list or protocol_get that serve different purposes.

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 conveys a clear usage context by explaining that the tool enables cross-reference between specific frameworks and returns corresponding checklist items. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' exclusions, so it stops short of a fully explicit contrast.

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