Policy Compliance Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that 'compliance_rate_percent' is computed only over evaluated devices and is null when none evaluated, and that pending devices are reported separately. This goes beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then explains the key statistical detail. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters but a likely rich output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: null handling for compliance_rate_percent and separate reporting of pending devices. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but for a stats tool this is adequate.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4 per instructions. The description does not need to add parameter details since the schema is empty.

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 'Retrieve per-policy compliance statistics for the organization,' specifying the verb (retrieve), resource (per-policy compliance statistics), and scope (organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_compliance_snapshot' by focusing on per-policy stats.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_compliance_snapshot' or 'noncompliant_report.' While it implies usage for per-policy stats, it lacks explicit guidance on context or exclusions.

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