grc_pci_audit_package

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

Annotations already provide the destructive and non-read-only signals, so the description only needs to add behavioral context rather than restate safety. It contributes useful context by noting execution uses the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which clarifies authorization boundaries. It does not describe side effects or what a run produces, but this is partially covered by the annotations and output schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a verb-first purpose sentence, a one-sentence routing/scoping note, and a clean two-argument list. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a generic dispatcher wrapper with two optional string parameters and an output schema, the description is structurally adequate. Still, it leaves the agent without enough semantic grounding for what a PCI audit package actually is, what the message should express, or how this tool relates to sibling grc tools.

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 carry the parameter semantics. It labels `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which is minimally useful. However, it does not explain what the JSON should contain, how the inputs map to the PCI audit package action, or any format examples.

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 a specific action: it runs the `pci_audit_package` grc domain agent action, and adds that it goes through the domain-agent dispatcher. It is clear at the surface level, but it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like `grc_sox_audit_package` or `grc_compliance_audit`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `grc_sox_audit_package`, `grc_compliance_audit`, or the generic `dispatch_domain_agent`. The routing/scoping sentence explains mechanics, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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