generate_evidence_bundle

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

Without annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure: it declares a WRITE operation (risk=medium), details side effects (reads audit DBs, writes to ~/.compliance-aiops/bundles/), and explicitly states it touches no external system. This is comprehensive for a tool with no 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 efficiently structured: first paragraph conveys purpose and key behaviors, second paragraph details parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter details, and safety. It lacks return value details, but that is somewhat expected without an output schema. Overall, it is sufficient for agent invocation.

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%, but the description comprehensively explains each parameter, including framework's allowed values, period_start/period_end as ISO timestamps, out_path default, sign behavior, and period's role as a convenience override. This adds significant meaning 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 assembles and hash-chain-seals an evidence bundle for a framework, with specific verb-resource combo and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_bundle and sign_bundle by emphasizing it writes a local artifact and doesn't touch external systems.

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 a happy-path usage scenario ('One-call happy path') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_bundle or sign_bundle. Exclusion criteria or prerequisites are absent.

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