aos_compliance_validate

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that advisory mode does not block while blocking mode does, and returns pass/fail with blocking_reasons. Missing details on authorization needs, side effects (likely read-only), or rate limits, but adequate for basic understanding.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: first states overall function, second and third detail gate modes. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.

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?

The description covers the core validation behavior and gate modes. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, missing parameter explanations make the description incomplete. Additional details on target_dir and tool_id would improve completeness.

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 0%, so description should explain parameters. It only describes gate_mode; it does not explain tool_id, target_dir, or mock. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb 'validate', the resource 'one agent directory', and the output 'pass/fail with blocking_reasons'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'aos_compliance_self_test' which tests the compliance system itself, not a directory.

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 explains both gate modes: advisory (default) returns info without blocking, and blocking sets blocks_next_step=true for CI enforcement. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling self_test.

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