map_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool shows pass/fail/partial status per control, which provides modest behavioral context but does not address rate limits, auth needs, or other potential side effects.

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 consists of two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second clarifies the output format. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (pass/fail/partial status per control). Parameters are well-documented in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand expected behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific compliance frameworks (NIST 800-177, PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, CIS Controls), which are not in the schema and help the agent understand the output scope.

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 the specific verb 'map' and clearly identifies the resource: compliance frameworks (NIST, PCI DSS, SOC 2, CIS Controls). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like assess_coverage or compare_baseline by focusing on mapping existing findings to frameworks.

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 implies usage after scanning to map findings to compliance frameworks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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