compliance-check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool identifies workloads and verifies segmentation policies, but does not explicitly say whether it is a read-only operation, what it returns, or whether there are side effects. 'Check' implies read-only but is not 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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though a more structured breakdown of parameters could improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a successful check returns or how results are presented. It does not describe return format, error conditions, or how lookback_days influences traffic analysis. For a tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description mentions 'specific compliance scopes' and 'framework requirements' but does not elaborate on how app_name, env_name, framework, or lookback_days affect the check. Minimal added value 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 uses specific verbs ('check', 'identifies', 'verifies') and names the resource (policy compliance) alongside concrete frameworks (PCI-DSS, NIST, CIS). It clearly distinguishes this as a compliance-checking operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like enforcement-readiness or get-policy-coverage-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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent here.

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