guard_make_compliant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('Não altera arquivos'). Beyond the annotations it adds real value: it reads code locally, runs the diagnostic, and returns actionable artifacts rather than performing mutations. It omits any note on auth, size limits, or runtime cost.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the outcome ('em um passo') followed by mechanics and the key non-mutation caveat. No filler, though the deliverable enumeration could be tightened.

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 composite analysis tool with no output schema, the description does explain the kinds of results returned (banner integration, consent points, policy draft, checklist with before/after score), which is helpful. But with 4 undocumented parameters and no mention of how inputs are provided, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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% across 4 parameters (files, banner_id, dpo_email, project_path), and the description names none of them. It alludes to banner and DPO concepts in passing but never explains what each parameter means, what project_path is relative to, or the shape of the files array, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a clear scope: it makes a Next.js project LGPD-ready and enumerates exactly what it returns (banner integration, consent points, policy draft, before/after checklist). It implies it is an aggregate of the granular siblings but never names one, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives one useful usage constraint — 'Não altera arquivos: o agente aplica as mudanças devolvidas' — which tells the agent the tool is advisory and the caller must apply changes. However, it never says when to prefer this over the granular siblings (guard_generate_cookie_banner, guard_add_consent_point, guard_generate_policy) or what prerequisites exist.

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