get_compliance_report

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects' upfront, which is critical for an agent to know this is a safe operation. It also discloses the PRO tier requirement for system/tag scopes: 'System/tag scopes require PRO tier.' Additionally, it warns about the error behavior when invalid parameter combinations are used with tag scope. This level of transparency is excellent given zero annotation support.

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 well-structured for an 8-parameter tool. It front-loads the core purpose and safety profile in the first line, then uses clear section headings ('Filtering / pagination:') and bullet-style formatting for scopes. Each sentence earns its place—scope semantics, filtering rules, pagination rules, and error behavior are all communicated without redundancies. For a tool that is necessarily complex due to its parameter space, this is appropriately concise and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, 3 scope types, multiple filters, pagination, scope-dependent behavior, error cases) and the lack of annotations, the description is complete. It covers: what the tool does, output format, scope semantics, filter behavior per scope, pagination behavior, error conditions, prerequisites, tier requirements, and read-only status. The output schema exists, so per-requirement row structure doesn't need to be repeated, but the description still explains the classification categories and coverage counts. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Despite the schema having 88% coverage, the description adds substantial additional meaning. It explains how scope and scope_id interact across the three scope types (model, system, tag), clarifying that scope determines how scope_id is read (e.g., 'tag' — 'scope_id' = tag id). It also explains the semantics of level (returns requirements at or below this level, e.g., 1 for L1 only), status (scope-specific applicability), and offset/limit (page-based semantics, with 0 meaning no limit). For each filter, it specifies which scopes honor it. The description also connects framework_id back to the workflow context (use with list_compliance_frameworks), providing workflow-level param context the schema lacks.

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 starts with a specific and precise statement: 'Compliance gap-analysis report for one framework at a chosen scope. Read-only...' This clearly identifies the tool's verb (get/report), resource (compliance gap analysis), and the key differentiator (one framework at a chosen scope). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_review_queue or model_coherence_report by specifying its function. The description also enumerates the classification categories (covered, partial, uncovered, unmapped, excluded) and the output (coverage counts plus per-requirement rows), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance. It states the prerequisite: 'The framework must first be activated at the same scope via select_compliance_frameworks (with the matching scope), otherwise there is nothing to report on.' It also clearly explains when to use each scope variation and explicitly states what happens when tag scope combines with certain parameters: 'passing status, offset, or limit with scope="tag" raises an error rather than silently returning unfiltered rows.' This is precisely the kind of when-to-use/what-not-to-do information an agent needs.

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