Get Compliance Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which align with the description's 'combined view' nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming it's a read-only summary. It could mention that no modifications are made or that results are static.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose. No unnecessary words or structural issues. Every part 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 output schema exists and annotations are thorough, the description covers the essential purpose adequately. However, missing parameter context reduces completeness. An explanation of optional parameters would achieve full completeness.

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%, yet the description does not explain the two parameters (group_id and detail_limit). Without any parameter context, the agent cannot infer filtering or detail controls. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 provides a combined view of non-compliant devices, fleet health metrics, and policy statistics. It directly answers the question 'What is our compliance posture?' and distinguishes itself from detailed sibling tools like noncompliant_report or policy_compliance_stats by being a single aggregated snapshot.

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 when needing an overall compliance posture summary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for more detailed views. Given the large number of sibling tools, clearer guidance would be beneficial.

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