List the most recently updated compliance nodes: the regulatory change feed. Use to monitor incoming amendments, new guidance, or freshly added rules. Filter by pillar to focus on a domain. Agents should call this on a schedule to keep compliance posture current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look back N days. Default 30. Max 180. | |
| pillar | No | Optional pillar filter, e.g. "AI Governance" or "Cybersecurity". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld. The description adds context about it being a regulatory change feed and provides scheduling advice, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and scheduling guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, use case, and operational guidance. It doesn't detail return values, but the description implies the result is a list of nodes, which is sufficient for this complexity level.
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 in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Filter by pillar to focus on a domain'), essentially paraphrasing the schema. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 recently updated compliance nodes, framing it as the regulatory change feed. It uses specific verbs ('List', 'monitor') and resource scope, and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing its role as a feed for monitoring amendments and new guidance.
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 to use this tool for monitoring incoming changes and suggests calling it on a schedule to keep compliance posture current. It also mentions filtering by pillar, giving concrete usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. The few overlapping pairs (get_node vs consult_node, get_latest_changes vs obligation_deltas) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent should be able to select correctly. No tools appear to do the same thing.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_node, create_attestation, seal_run). However, several tools deviate significantly: drift_check and gap_check put the noun first, obligation_deltas is a bare noun, and point_in_time and oscal_assessment_results are noun phrases without a verb. This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.
At 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the range. However, the tool set covers a very broad compliance intelligence domain, including discovery, compliance checks, run management, attestations, and change feeds. Each tool has a clear role, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents that need only a subset of functionality.
The tool surface is very comprehensive for a compliance intelligence platform. It covers discovery (browse, search, list, get), action compliance checking, jurisdiction comparison, dependency analysis, change tracking, run ledger management, attestation creation, and evidence export. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.