bastion__compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the output is a summary mapped to frameworks, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the purpose, mapping, and prerequisite efficiently, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does and a key requirement. However, it lacks detail on what 'recent tool activity' means or the format of the summary, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 it reports an audit/compliance summary of recent tool activity, mapped to specific governance frameworks (NIST AI RMF and OWASP LLM Top 10). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bastion__approve' by focusing on compliance reporting rather than approval actions.

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 notes that audit must be enabled, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies when to use (when an audit summary is needed), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

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