get_compliance_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only query operation (조회) and states what data is returned (category, standard, rule, status), but discloses nothing about pagination behavior beyond the 'first' parameter, limits, empty-result handling, or the exact shape of the response. For a simple look-up tool this is adequate but thin.

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 that states the main action first. However, the parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 준수율/컴플라이언스)' is internal-note noise that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool and could have been omitted.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description hints at return values by listing included fields, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It's minimally sufficient but leaves the meaning of 'first' (asset count vs. finding count) and likely pagination behavior unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'first' parameter ('조회할 자산 수, 기본 20'). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb (조회/retrieve) with a clear resource (endpoint compliance violation findings) and lists the fields included (category, standard, rule, status). The 'Compliance' keyword clearly distinguishes this from the CVE-oriented findings siblings (get_cve_findings, get_filtered_cve_findings), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 parenthetical business requirement (패치 준수율/컴플라이언스, patch compliance rate) gives some context about when this is relevant, implying it serves compliance/patch-rate queries. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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