gavaza_gdpr_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'print' conveys that the tool outputs a mapping table and does not modify data, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe side effects. For a simple display tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero unnecessary words and effectively communicates the tool's core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, presence of an output schema), the description is sufficient to convey the tool's purpose and expected output. It could have added a note about being read-only, but that is implied by 'print'. Overall, the context is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented fields. The baseline 4 for zero parameters 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 uses a specific verb 'Print' and names the exact resource 'POPIA to GDPR mapping table'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gavaza_assess or mhangani_report, which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the user needs to see the POPIA to GDPR mapping table. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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