build_iso_42001

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format (Markdown ready for an auditor), which is the key behavioral trait here, but is silent on whether anything is persisted, whether retentionDays affects stored artifacts, and whether receipts must be pre-verified via verify_manifest.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by coverage and output format. No redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return format and the standard's clause coverage. It is nearly complete for a generation tool, with the only gap being side effects or prerequisites for the required receipts input.

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 scope, receipts, retentionDays, and operatorActions are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid receipt or what operatorActions contribute), so the 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?

States a specific verb (build) and a precisely scoped resource (an ISO/IEC 42001:2023 AIMS report from VAOS receipts), and quantifies the coverage (clauses 4-10 plus the 38-control Annex A matrix). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling builders for other standards such as build_nist_ai_rmf or build_iso_23894.

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 mention of a certification body (BSI, TÜV SÜD) implies the tool's use context, but the description never states when to choose it over neighbors like build_annex_iv or build_iso_23894, nor what prerequisites the receipts must satisfy. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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