Assess an AI agent's compliance with the EU AI Act by evaluating risk, audit trail, human oversight, and transparency.
Generate an EU AI Act compliance report for an agent. Checks Art. 6 (risk), Art. 12 (audit trail), Art. 14 (human oversight), Art. 52 (transparency). No LLM cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the specific compliance articles it checks and notes 'No LLM cost', which is a behavioral trait (deterministic, no token usage). This adds useful context about what the report covers and its resource footprint.
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, zero filler, and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word adds value, and it includes only necessary details like article references and cost behavior.
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 one required parameter, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, which articles are checked, and the 'No LLM cost' behavior. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'agent_id' with a clear description ('The agent ID or name'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema fully handles it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool generates an EU AI Act compliance report for an agent, listing the specific articles checked (Art. 6, 12, 14, 52). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle compliance reporting.
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 should be used when an EU AI Act compliance report is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or exclude alternatives. There is no mention of alternative tools or prerequisites, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.