dpia_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the output structure but does not disclose non-obvious behaviors such as whether the tool stores or logs inputs, rate limiting details, or whether it requires authentication (caller and tier params hint but not explicit).

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 concise, starting with the main purpose in one sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. The argument list is well-structured but could be more integrated into the narrative. Overall efficient.

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 tool has 12 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the primary functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, default behaviors (beyond schema defaults), or prerequisites (e.g., needing prior lawful basis).

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 the schema provides no explanatory text. The description lists each argument with a brief purpose (e.g., 'Name of the AI system'), adding meaningful context beyond type and name. This compensates partially for the lack of schema documentation.

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 generates a Data Protection Impact Assessment per GDPR Article 35, and specifies it produces structured outputs including necessity assessment, risk evaluation, and mitigation measures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like breach_notification or lawful_basis_assessment.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is required before high-risk AI processing begins, giving a clear trigger for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different compliance needs.

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