list_frameworks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation without side effects. However, it does not mention potential timeouts, permission requirements, or whether the coverage percentage is real-time or cached. Minor omission, but overall clear.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and outputs.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It fully conveys the scope and content of the returned data. No gaps are apparent.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% trivial. The description adds semantic value by detailing what the response includes (descriptions, control counts, coverage percentage), which goes beyond the empty 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'), the resource ('compliance frameworks'), and provides concrete examples (HIPAA, GDPR) along with the returned fields (descriptions, control counts, coverage percentage). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files and list_conversations.

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 for retrieving a high-level overview of available frameworks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling get_compliance_score or any other tool. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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