get_nist_rmf

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns steps, tasks, and documents, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, rate limits). Given the annotations' coverage, the description adds moderate context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose: verb, specific resource, and scope of output.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, good annotations, and an output schema (which explains return values), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Minor improvement could be noting the hierarchical structure of steps, but it is nearly complete.

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 100%, with the parameter description listing valid steps and default behavior. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'NIST SP 800-37 Risk Management Framework', and the specific content (steps, tasks, key documents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nist_csf or get_nist_control, which cover different frameworks.

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 the tool's purpose (retrieve RMF details) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_nist_csf. It neither states exclusions nor recommends sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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