generate_evidence_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it reads audit DBs, writes only to a local artifact under ~/.compliance-aiops/bundles/, and touches no external system. It does not say what happens if out_path already exists (overwrite vs error) or what the destructive hint actually refers to, which is a mild gap for a tool annotated destructive.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, then a one-line summary, then the output/scope sentence, then a tight argument list. Every line adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, scope, target location, parameter precedence rules, and side effects. The description even states where the resulting bundle .json lands, so an agent knows the return artifact without an 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: framework lists all six valid values, period_start/period_end are specified as ISO timestamps, out_path documents its default directory, sign explains the HMAC-attachment condition, and period is documented as a convenience window that applies only when start/end are omitted. This is more than the bare schema could ever convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assemble + hash-chain-seal an evidence bundle for a framework') and immediately enumerates what the bundle aggregates: coverage, approval trail, exceptions, sealed evidence records. An agent can distinguish this from verify_bundle, export_bundle, and the individual report siblings without opening any schema.

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 'One-call happy path' phrase clearly signals this is the consolidated call that subsumes coverage_summary, approval_report, and exceptions_report, which is real usage context. However, no sibling tool is named explicitly and there is no 'do not use when' clause (e.g., when to prefer export_bundle or a single report), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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