workflow_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default summarised payload (weakness count, counts per status, worst status), what detail=true adds, the exact rule for when a mitigation counts as in place, and that validation errors suppress all other output. It stops short of stating side effects or that the operation is read-only, which is the remaining gap for an un-annotated tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information (mutual exclusivity, default vs detail, mitigation rule, error behavior). The mitigation sentence is a dense run-on that costs a little readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully previews the summarised vs detailed shapes and the error-only case. Combined with the input-argument constraint it covers what an agent needs, with the only omission being safety/side-effect information that annotations would normally carry.

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% so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one of file_path or workflow') is not encoded in the schema, where both default to null, and it explains the mode switch semantics of detail=true and the 'assessment mode' caveat.

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 and resource: list the weaknesses and mitigations for every technique step, in flow order, and it ties itself to the builder's Compile step. It implicitly separates itself from workflow_validate by stating that validation errors short-circuit the output, but it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it says 'give exactly one of file_path or workflow' and describes the default vs detail=true mode, from which an agent can infer when each is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs workflow_validate/workflow_inspect guidance or stated prerequisites.

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