governance_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states determinism, the optionality of expected_pubkey, the default behavior, and what happens when no key is supplied (proof.expected_pubkey null, limits indicates uncovered areas). It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, but the report/snapshot framing makes that reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key characteristics. Most sentences earn their place, but the closing remark 'this report used to be unable to pin at all' is historical context that is not needed for correct invocation and adds slight noise.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly and know what kind of result to expect (deterministic report with proof.expected_pubkey and limits fields). It could be more complete by briefly explaining the overall output structure, but the coverage is solid for the tool's simplicity.

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 sole parameter, expected_pubkey, has 0% schema coverage, but the description compensates fully: it explains the format (hex), that it is optional, its purpose (pinning tamper-evidence), the default constant, and the resulting behavior when absent. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 explains that the tool produces a governance snapshot covering erasure/retention posture, tamper-evidence, and integrity counters, and names the intended audience (DPO/CISO/auditor). It lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'returns', but 'snapshot' strongly implies a report action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as compliance_report or audit_bundle, though its content list helps.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: when a governance summary for DPO/CISO/auditor needs is required. It also adds the distinction 'Deterministic, no LLM', which helps an agent know it is not a generative/interpretive tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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