grc_policy_gap_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under user scope, which is helpful, but it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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: the first states the action, the second provides routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is concise and logically structured, though it could be more front-loaded with the action's purpose.

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 no annotations and a hidden output schema, the description omits crucial context: what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and when to choose it over siblings like grc_risk_register_scan. It covers only the immediate action and parameters.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and defaults), so the description adds critical meaning. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This clarifies their purpose beyond the bare schema.

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 that the tool runs the 'policy_gap_analysis' domain agent action. While it does not elaborate on what the analysis entails, the verb 'Run' combined with the specific action name conveys the purpose adequately and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grc_compliance_audit or grc_control_testing.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) and parameter definitions, failing to specify contexts where policy gap analysis is appropriate or how it differs from related grc tools.

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