compliance_dengbao_levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it offers an 'honest iaiops posture' with per-control status/gap, and emphasizes it is not a certification. This goes beyond the annotations and provides insight into the tool's output reliability and scope.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with a clear summary line before diving into details. The Args and Returns sections are clearly labeled and the example is useful. Every sentence adds value, though a bit of density could be trimmed without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns. It does so by explicitly listing the keys of the returned dict (framework, levels, selected_level, pillar_count, deltas, note) and describing the delta structure. Coupled with parameter details and an example, the tool is fully specified for an agent.

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 schema only defines 'level' as a string/null with no values, giving 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by listing accepted values ('l2'/'l3', '二级'/'三级', or '2'/'3') and explaining the default behavior when omitted (both levels). The example further clarifies usage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: comparing 等保 2.0 二级 vs 三级 per-pillar deltas and iaiops posture. It explicitly says it is an onboarding/self-assessment aid, not a certification, which distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like compliance_mapping or compliance_report. The verb and resource are specific.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: as an onboarding/self-assessment aid, and clarifies what it is not for (certification). It also explains how to pass the level argument with accepted values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the certification disclaimer.

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