Noncompliant Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the report includes fields like 'reason_for_fail' (with truncation warning), 'severity', and 'type', which aids in understanding the output. No contradiction.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second lists key fields. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The description adequately covers what the report returns but lacks guidance on input parameters (e.g., how to filter by group, pagination). An output schema exists but is not shown; the agent still needs parameter usage context. Given the complexity of 4 parameters, the description is incomplete.

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%, meaning no parameter details are provided in the schema. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (group_id, limit, offset, output_format) or their effects. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 retrieves a specific resource (the non-compliant devices report) and explains its purpose (showing devices needing attention due to policy failures or missing patches). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'devices_needing_attention' by detailing the report's content.

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 for checking non-compliant devices and mentions fields for prioritization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'devices_needing_attention' or 'get_compliance_snapshot'. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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