report_owasp_compliance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or behavior with invalid/empty input. Merely states output schema, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Two sentences effectively cover purpose, input, and output structure. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant or vague phrasing. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, description compensates by detailing the compliance matrix output for each MCP01-MCP10. However, lacks details on finding object structure and error handling, which are minor gaps for a report generator.

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% with the parameter 'findings' described as a JSON string of Finding[] array. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates an OWASP MCP Top 10 compliance matrix from findings, specifying the output fields for each category. Differentiates from siblings like report_compare or scanner_owasp_mapping by focusing on compliance matrix generation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are other report generators and OWASP mapping tools, but no context is provided for selection. Lacks prerequisites or conditions for effective use.

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