EU Cyber Resilience Act Readiness

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context: it's informational (not legal advice), and explains the exact behavior (returns next question or final outcome with obligations/dates/penalties). No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: what it does, input format, output expectations, and disclaimer.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers input format, starting state, and output types (next question or final outcome). The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers all needed context.

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 100%, but description adds significant meaning: explains the format { questionId: optionIndex } and that omitting answers gets the first question. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool walks the CRA scoping decision tree, takes answers, and returns next question or final outcome. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on robotics simulation conversions.

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?

Provides clear guidance: start with no answers to get first question, and specifies the answers format. The informational disclaimer is helpful. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, sibling tools are unrelated so no confusion.

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