build_check_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions what aspects are checked. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires network access, or is read-only. The implied 'check' suggests non-destructive behavior, but it's not explicitly stated.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and essential details. It fails to provide a useful overview or key information like expected output or behavior.

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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the compliance check produces (pass/fail, report, etc.), how to interpret results, or what actions to take if non-compliant.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the enum values already in the schema. The 'platform' parameter's role is clear from the schema, but the description does not elaborate on how to use it or its impact on the check.

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 checks iOS/Android compliance for Target SDK, permissions, and StreamingAssets bloat. The verb 'Check' and resource 'compliance' are specific, and it broadly distinguishes from siblings like 'build_analyze_bloat' which might focus on general bloat analysis.

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. Siblings such as 'super_health_check' or 'build_analyze_bloat' could overlap, but the description does not clarify specific contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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