Compliance Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as SSH/auth requirements, remote-host implications, or how scope/standard/scan_type alter the check. With annotations covering safety, this is a modest gap but still under-informative.

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?

It is very short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The two clauses do not front-load meaningful distinguishing information.

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?

With seven parameters, an output schema, and several closely related security siblings, the description should clarify the tool's role and relationship to alternatives. It does not, leaving an agent to rely entirely on schema field names and annotations.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum-like values for scope, standard, and scan_type. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 largely restates the name and title: 'Compliance check (tm_security). Security scanning and compliance.' It does not specify what is checked or how it differs from sibling tools like tm_security_security_audit, tm_security_vulnerability_scan, or tm_security_access_control_audit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling security/audit tools or remote-host tools. An agent is left to infer that this is an umbrella check covering audit, compliance, and vulnerability scan parameters.

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