compliance_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the mapping uses CWE/OWASP metadata but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any required permissions. Adequate but has gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 tool has an output schema and the description covers the main action and frameworks, it is fairly complete. However, it omits prerequisites like the existence of scan findings.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds context about framework mapping using CWE/OWASP metadata, but does not further elaborate on parameter meanings or constraints beyond the 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 the tool maps findings to a compliance framework and reports posture, listing specific frameworks (OWASP, SANS, PCI, CIS). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_report'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'evaluate_policy' or 'generate_report'. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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