compliance_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks a running config, implying a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any prerequisites like device reachability or required permissions.

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 paragraphs plus an Args section. The introductory paragraph is concise and informative. The Args section repeats the parameter name from the schema but adds the helpful source reference. Overall, it is reasonably concise but could be tightened by merging the first two sentences.

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 single parameter and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output format ('scored report with pass/fail per rule and remediation advice'). It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but for a straightforward check tool with one param, it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'device' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds meaningful context by stating the device name is 'as defined in devices.yaml', which tells the user where to find valid values, going beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'device's running config' against 'security best practices'. It lists specific areas like NTP, SSH, SNMP, AAA, passwords, which distinguishes it from many sibling tools that deal with show commands or backups. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related siblings 'compliance_check_rule' and 'compliance_list_rules'.

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 checking security compliance by describing the output (scored report with pass/fail and remediation). It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Siblings like health_check or compliance_check_rule exist but are not referenced.

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