get_system_compliance_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds read-only status, PRO tier requirement, aggregation behavior (rolling up controls), and the prerequisite for framework selection. However, it doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, though the output schema and parameter descriptions cover return details. Overall, it provides strong non-obvious behavioral context.

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 two concise paragraphs. The first defines the tool's core function and constraints. The second explains the aggregation behavior, sibling alternatives, and prerequisite. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 (system-level aggregation), the description explains the scope, aggregation mechanism, prerequisites, and alternatives. The output schema is present, so return values don't need to be described. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that framework_id must already be selected for the system, and by explaining the aggregation logic that ties system_id and framework_id together. This enriches the semantics beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 states the tool creates an aggregated compliance report for a System (group of threat models) against a framework, using specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_compliance_report (single model) and get_tag_compliance_report (tag cohort).

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 states when to use this tool: for whole-system compliance reports, and identifies alternative tools for narrower scopes. It also gives a crucial prerequisite (framework must be selected via select_system_compliance_frameworks) and notes the PRO tier requirement, providing clear context for use.

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