edgegate_export_compliance_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool re-frames already-signed evidence, lists the covered clauses, clarifies it's not a certification, and points to where the PDF appears. This covers key traits of a read-only export.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first fronts the action and the second adds a critical limitation and output location.

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?

The description explains the report's purpose, content (clauses), limitation, and where to find the formatted PDF. It doesn't specify the API return value, but since no output schema exists, that's a minor gap; overall, it's sufficient for a report generation tool.

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 only 33% (preset has a description); workspace_id and run_id are not described in the schema, and the description doesn't explain them or their formats. It mentions 'preset' only indirectly via the example of ISO 26262, so it poorly compensates for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Export the compliance-preset report for a run' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from generic run reports by explaining it's a re-frame of signed evidence against standard clauses and explicitly not a compliance certification.

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?

Provides clear context on when this tool applies (compliance-preset reports like ISO 26262) and states an exclusion ('NOT a compliance certification'), though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for general reports.

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