get_asvs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description doesn't need to restate safety. Description adds that it returns 'verification requirements' which is consistent and useful.

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?

Single sentence effectively conveys tool purpose and filtering options. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-documented in schema, description covers filtering and resource identity. Lacks mention of pagination but that is handled by schema (limit, offset).

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 descriptions already exist for all parameters, covering meaning and defaults. Description adds 'Filter by chapter, level, or search' which largely repeats schema info. With 60% schema coverage, description contributes minimal extra value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get OWASP ASVS 5.0 verification requirements', specifying the exact resource and version. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_masvs or get_nist_* which target different standards.

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 'Filter by chapter, level, or search' provides clear usage context for retrieving specific requirements. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but siblings are distinct standards making the use case obvious.

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