get_compliance_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only; ... does not change compliance records' largely restates them. The genuinely additive part is the aggregate-vs-single-session behavior and the default limit; 'returns JSON' is generic and, with no output schema, gives no insight into report shape.

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 compact sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded, followed by the routing rule for the optional parameter. No filler, though the trailing read-only clause is partly redundant with the annotations.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only report tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what the report contains, both invocation modes, the default limit, and the absence of side effects. A little more on report structure would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 67% and the undocumented parameter is limit; the description compensates by stating the default of 10 and its role in the aggregate filter. The two documented parameters (agent_id, inject_session_id) are also explained in behavioral terms (single vs aggregate), adding context beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Get a compliance report for injection sessions') and clarifies the payload ('follow/violation rates for MUST memories'). It is discernible from get_effectiveness_report, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from the sibling report_compliance, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives explicit invocation guidance: pass inject_session_id for a single session, or omit it for an aggregate filtered by agent_id and limit (default 10). What's missing is any exclusion, e.g. when to prefer report_compliance or get_effectiveness_report instead.

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