Qvac Compliance Check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans notes for patterns, but it does not describe whether it is read-only, what side effects occur (if any), whether it returns a result, or what happens when patterns are found. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that could have safety implications.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key action and purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, list of violations). It does not. It also lacks any detail on constraints or expected input quality, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full context of calling this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description clarifies that 'design_notes' refers to design/code notes, adding some meaning beyond the parameter name. However, it does not specify the expected format, length limits, or how the notes are interpreted, leaving gaps that the schema cannot fill.

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 action ('scans') and the resource ('design/code notes') and the specific purpose ('for cloud-inference patterns'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like qvac_search and qvac_index, which are about retrieval, making this a distinct guardrail tool.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or explicit exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the single sentence, which is not sufficient for proper tool selection.

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