compliance_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses truncation to top 50 for large projects, a summary section at top, and different modes. This is adequate behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 sentences plus an example, no extraneous information. Front-loaded with key purpose and frameworks, then details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior (truncation), output structure (summary), modes, and provides an example. No output schema, but return format is implicitly described. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for mode ('C-level summary') and an example, but does not significantly expand on schema descriptions. Appropriate score.

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 specific verb 'map' and clearly identifies the resource: security findings to compliance controls. It lists supported frameworks (SOC2, PCI-DSS, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling scanning tools by focusing on compliance mapping rather than general scanning.

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?

States when to use: mapping security findings to compliance frameworks. Provides mode choices (executive for C-level) and an example. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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