breach_notification

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (assess, determine, generate) and notes param roles (caller for rate limiting). However, it omits side effects (e.g., logging), authentication requirements, or rate limit specifics, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 moderately concise with a clear paragraph explaining purpose and action, followed by an Args list. The front-loading of purpose is effective, though the Args list partially duplicates the schema. Overall, it is well-organized and not overly verbose.

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 complexity of GDPR breach notification and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs and expected output (notification content). However, it could briefly mention output structure or any constraints (e.g., only works for specific jurisdictions) for fuller 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%, so the description must compensate entirely. It provides clear, detailed explanations for each parameter, including possible values for 'breach_type' (confidentiality, integrity, availability). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, enabling 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 specifies the tool's purpose: assessing breach severity and notification requirements under GDPR Articles 33-34, and generating notification content. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'classify_processing' or 'dpia_generator' by focusing on breach-specific legal obligations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for breach assessment under GDPR) and references the 72-hour rule. However, it does not mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative sibling tools, which would enhance guidance.

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