get_sufficiency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is read-only, clarifies evaluation is server-side with no CI round-trip, and explains the stale-verdict behavior including automatic fresh evaluation. These details give the agent a clear model of what to expect.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core definition, then usage guidance, then stale behavior. Every clause serves a purpose: scope definition, return-value summary, evaluation context, and a direct sibling comparison. No wasted language.

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 singular focus and available output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns (status and reasoning), and edge cases (staleness). It even explains the automatic re-evaluation workflow, leaving little ambiguity. The only missing piece would be parameter details, but those are partially in the schema.

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?

Two of three parameters (model_id, control_id) are described in the schema, leaving server_version undescribed (67% coverage). The description's mention of 'current assertion set' and 'control description' provides contextual hints but doesn't explicitly explain any parameter's syntax or semantics. Since the schema already covers most parameters and the description adds little specific parameter meaning, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a sufficiency check for a single control, with the purpose 'whether its submitted assertions collectively cover every aspect of the control.' It distinguishes itself from 'get_verification_report' by focusing on a single control. A specific verb and resource make 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use this for a focused check on one control after submitting assertions.' It names the alternative 'get_verification_report' for whole-model rollup and specifies the additional details that tool provides (tier1/tier2 pass/fail counts and drift/misalignment). This is a model of usage guidance.

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