grc_pci_audit_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses routing via domain-agent dispatcher but does not indicate side effects (e.g., data mutation, report generation) or any destructive potential. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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 concise with two sentences and a bulleted arg list. No superfluous content. However, the first sentence repeats the tool name without adding value, costing a point.

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 complexity (many sibling GRC tools, obscure domain action), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the tool's output, side effects, or how it fits into a broader compliance workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is minimal but adequate for a two-parameter tool. More detail on expected input formats or constraints would improve clarity.

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 states it runs the 'pci_audit_package' domain agent action, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what a PCI audit package accomplishes (e.g., generate a compliance report), making it hard to distinguish from similar tools like grc_sox_audit_package.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other GRC tools. The description only mentions routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to specify prerequisites or alternatives.

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