get_policy_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' implies a read-only status lookup, but the description does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, what happens when a policy is not found, or any access/rate-limit considerations. It is adequate for a simple get-like operation but leaves some behavior implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits useful parameter and usage details, making it concise but not fully well-rounded.

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 output schema exists and likely covers return values, but the description alone does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It leaves the optional cluster parameter's behavior unexplained and gives no guidance on how this tool relates to sibling compliance or policy tools, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain name, namespace, or cluster beyond the phrase 'per-cluster', which only hints at the cluster parameter's role. It does not specify how the optional cluster field filters results or what the default behavior is, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('per-cluster compliance status for an ACM Policy'), which clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is distinct from broad siblings like list_policies, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_policies or get_managed_cluster. It does not mention prerequisites, whether cluster is optional, or any exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the namespace and parameter names alone.

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