disclosure-compiler

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool is deterministic, cites sources, does not fabricate data, and leaves gaps explicit. This gives a solid understanding of the tool's behavior without needing annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and critical behavioral traits. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are covered externally. The description covers the main function, inputs, and key constraints (determinism, no fabrication). It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'deterministic' or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for a tool with a supplementary schema.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description only explains two inputs (company_facts, ghg_result) indirectly; framework, options, request_id, payment_ref are not elaborated. Given the parameter complexity (6 params, 2 required), the description should provide more parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Compile'), resource ('disclosure draft'), inputs ('company facts, optional GHG-ledger result'), and key properties ('deterministic, cited, no fabrication'). It is distinct from siblings which handle agent description, framework retrieval, and verification.

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 use when needing a deterministic disclosure draft from known facts, and mentions the optional GHG result. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools have different purposes.

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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'deterministic' and lists return items, which implies consistency, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints. The output schema will detail return structure, so the description provides adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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, well-structured sentence. It concisely lists the return items without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output. It lists all major return elements, and sibling tools are distinct, so the description is contextually 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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4 per rules. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it focuses on return values, which is acceptable.

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 returns specific deterministic information about the agent, including capabilities, version, pack digest, pricing, composition, and a disclaimer. The verb 'return' and the listed items make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like compile_disclosure and get_framework which likely cover different aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description simply lists what it returns, without any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns data without side effects, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose any prerequisites, error conditions, or performance considerations.

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 concise sentence that avoids fluff. Every word adds value, effectively summarizing the tool's function.

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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the input parameter sufficiently. For a simple tool with one parameter, more context on parameter usage and the operation's nature (e.g., safe, idempotent) is expected.

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 0%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'framework' parameter. It fails to clarify what a 'framework' is (e.g., name, ID) or how to specify it, leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'one bundled framework's required datapoints, mappings, sources, and framework-pack lineage.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_frameworks by implying this is for a single framework's detailed info.

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 alternatives. The purpose implies it's for retrieving details of a specific framework, but there is no mention of list_frameworks as the alternative for listing all frameworks.

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 convey behavioral traits. It implicitly describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state safety characteristics or potential side effects, leaving minor room for doubt.

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?

Description is a single sentence listing the output fields. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be trimmed to 'List bundled frameworks with details.' Front-loads purpose well.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides a full account of the returned data. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand what this tool does and what it returns.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds meaning by enumerating what the output contains (framework IDs, coverage, etc.), which goes beyond the empty input 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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'bundled framework IDs, coverage, source lineage, version, and the framework-pack digest.' Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_framework' which likely retrieves a single framework.

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 alternatives like 'get_framework'. With zero parameters, the use case is straightforward, but the description does not provide context or 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions recomputing multiple aspects, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The input format hint is helpful but behavioral traits remain unclear.

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 with no fluff. First sentence states core purpose, second explains input format. Every word earns its place.

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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description covers the core action and input. However, it misses workflow context (e.g., how this relates to compile_disclosure) and does not mention output format, which is acceptable due to output schema.

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 0%, meaning the only parameter (result_json) has no description in the schema. The description states 'Pass the prior result as JSON', giving basic purpose but lacking structural details about the expected JSON content or format.

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 specifies a clear action (recompute) on a specific resource (disclosure draft audit hash, notary payload, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like compile_disclosure which compiles rather than verifies.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'Pass the prior result as JSON' implies a workflow but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools like compile_disclosure suggest a sequencing, but the description does not clarify.

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