run_compliance_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it is read-only, optionally covers the cluster, and returns pass/fail per check with raw evidence. It still omits permissions, runtime expectations, and failure behavior, but the core operational profile is 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Every clause contributes to purpose, scope, or return format.

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?

For a simple tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states read-only behavior, cluster scope, and return shape. However, it leaves check_ids undefined and does not describe permissions or operational constraints, which are clear gaps.

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. It explains include_k8s well by stating that the cluster is included only when true, but it never mentions check_ids, leaving the more important selection parameter undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: run read-only compliance checks on the host or cluster and return pass/fail plus raw evidence. It implicitly distinguishes execution from list_checks, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for running compliance checks, optionally including Kubernetes. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_checks or how it relates to evidence upload tools, so guidance remains minimal.

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