enforcement-readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the analysis process and the output, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only assessment or mention permissions, side effects, or underlying data sources. 'Assess' implies no mutation, but that is not made explicit.

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 concise sentences: the first states the outcome and method, the second states the deliverable. Every phrase earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a moderate-complexity assessment tool, the description covers what it analyzes, what it returns, and the inputs are fully covered by the schema. It lacks a score range or example output, but it is sufficiently explicit for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%: app_name, env_name, and lookback_days are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 names a specific verb ('Assess') and a distinct resource ('whether an application is ready for enforcement'), and details the method ('analyzing traffic flows, existing policy coverage, and identifying potential gaps') and output ('readiness score and actionable recommendations'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get-traffic-flows or get-workload-enforcement-status.

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 implies the tool is for readiness evaluation before enforcement, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus related tools such as get-traffic-flows, get-policy-coverage-report, or compliance-check. There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives.

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