Bidda Sovereign Intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked list of regulations with a risk indicator, but it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some transparency but is 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 two sentences with no extraneous information. Key details (purpose, input format, output characteristics) are front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description effectively communicates the return format (ranked list of regulations, risk indicator). With three parameters and clear context, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the 'action' parameter should be a natural-language description, with specific examples (e.g., 'process EU resident biometric data'), which aids understanding 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 tool performs a 'pre-flight regulatory check' and provides examples of natural language actions it handles. It distinguishes itself by being 'the primary tool for runtime compliance gating in autonomous agent workflows,' which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says it is the primary tool for runtime compliance gating, implying when to use it. However, it does not mention when to avoid it or provide direct comparisons to siblings like get_crosswalk or search_nodes. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: full mapping values are vault-gated, while discovery returns available dimensions. This adds significant context beyond the schema, though it does not cover all possible behaviors (e.g., rate limits).

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence defines the tool's function with an example, second sentence adds a critical behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (dimensions) and the vault-gating distinction. However, it lacks details on the exact structure of the returned dimensions.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the mapping dimensions but does not elaborate on the node_id parameter beyond what the schema offers.

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 action ('Return the cross-framework mapping dimensions for a node') and provides a concrete example (GDPR Article 17 → CCPA right-to-delete → POPIA Section 24), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dependency_chain or get_mitre_mapping.

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 inspecting cross-framework mappings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations, but the description discloses key behaviors: it walks the chain, returns a tree, defaults to depth 2, max depth 4. Lacks mention of side effects or auth, but is sufficiently informative for a read-like operation.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and object, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but return value is described (full dependency tree). Siblings are listed but not compared. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions, and the added context (full dependency tree, typical depth) enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 it walks the prerequisite chain and returns the dependency tree, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like check_action_compliance or get_node by framing the purpose for compliance planning.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use this to plan a complete compliance posture') and provides typical depth expectations (3-8 upstream nodes). Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is strong.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It claims to 'Return all compliance nodes' but includes a limit parameter, creating ambiguity about completeness. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or what a 'compliance node' is, leaving significant 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and usage context are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description lacks explanation of 'compliance nodes' and the implications of the limit parameter (e.g., capping results). With no output schema, the description should clarify the expected output. This is insufficient for a tool intended for entering new markets.

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 both parameters described. The description adds marginal value by listing jurisdiction examples (already in schema) but does not clarify the limit behavior or default beyond what schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns compliance nodes for a specific jurisdiction, with examples. The verb 'Return' and resource 'compliance nodes' are specific, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like search_nodes or get_node, which might also return nodes for a jurisdiction.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when an agent enters a new market and needs the full regulatory surface for that geography.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools like get_node for single node retrieval.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's purpose and filtering, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or response structure. Lacks depth on behavior.

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 roughly two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more streamlined without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., node IDs, titles, dates). For a monitoring tool, the return format is important context. Also, without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral detail.

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 both parameters described. The description adds value by framing 'filter by pillar to focus on a domain' and implying time range via 'recently updated'. This reinforces the schema's descriptions.

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 lists 'the most recently updated compliance nodes' and positions it as 'the regulatory change feed'. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_action_compliance and get_crosswalk.

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?

Explicitly suggests using the tool to monitor amendments, guidance, and rules, and to filter by pillar. Also recommends scheduling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_nodes or other siblings for scenarios where a different tool might be better.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'Bidda node' + compliance obligations, but it does not mention read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential error cases. This is adequate but lacks depth for a tool that likely involves external data.

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 (two main sentences plus a short closing), with key information front-loaded via the metaphor. It lists supported frameworks and compliance standards efficiently. The 'Free.' is unnecessary but harmless.

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?

The description covers the tool's input (technique ID from multiple frameworks) and output (Bidda node + compliance obligations). Without an output schema, it provides a high-level but sufficient account. It omits return structure details, but the list of compliance standards gives agents a clear expectation.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed examples for the technique_id parameter. The description adds context about the returned compliance standards and the Bidda node, but does not clarify input format beyond the schema. Thus, the description adds only marginal value over 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 defines the tool as a mapper from MITRE technique IDs (across 5 frameworks) to compliance obligations (9 standards). The metaphor 'MITRE Rosetta Stone' effectively conveys its cross-domain purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like get_crosswalk or check_action_compliance.

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 explains when to use it: as a bridge between SOC and compliance teams. It implicitly indicates not to use it for other mappings (e.g., cross-framework mappings might belong to get_crosswalk). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when to avoid this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a summary and that the full node is available externally, which implies it is not a write operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action and results. Efficiently communicates purpose and extra information.

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 get by ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions where to find additional data, which is helpful context.

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% and already describes the id parameter with examples. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves a node by ID and listing the returned fields (summary contents), which goes beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 (compliance node by ID), and the content of the return (summary with title, pillar, version, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying single-node retrieval by ID.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_pillars or search_nodes. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read-only list operation with node counts, including specific numbers. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and examples. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and a simple list operation, the description covers the tool's function, input, and output context (node counts, examples). No output schema exists, but the description gives enough for an agent to understand the result shape.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the return content (node counts per pillar), which aids understanding.

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 compliance pillars... with node counts' and provides specific examples (MITRE layer, Banking, AI Governance), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly advises 'Use this first to discover available compliance domains before searching,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context implies it for discovery.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the output (summaries with BLUF) and assures factual grounding from legal sources, adding credibility beyond basic functionality.

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 with two sentences plus examples, front-loading the main action. Every word adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: search functionality, output content (BLUF), and source reliability. It briefly mentions optional filter (pillar) but does not detail return structure beyond summaries. Still sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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%, so the description adds limited value for parameters. The examples for 'query' are helpful but not essential given the schema's descriptions already exist.

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 it searches nodes by keyword and returns summaries with a BLUF. It provides examples and distinguishes itself from siblings (get_node, list_pillars) by focusing on search functionality.

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 examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for keyword searches but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools.

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