list_compliance_frameworks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with helpful examples. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavior, output format, and usage guidelines. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but without output schema or annotations, the description should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool lists 'compliance frameworks' generally. It doesn't explain how datasource_ids relate to frameworks or clarify pagination behavior, so it meets the baseline but doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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 action ('List all') and target resource ('compliance frameworks available for cloud resources'), providing specific examples (CIS, SOC2, PCI-DSS) that help clarify scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_framework_requirements' or 'list_compliance_controls', which might have overlapping domains.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with related tools like 'list_compliance_controls' or 'list_framework_requirements', leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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