compliance_mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and low risk, and the description echoes '[READ][risk=low]' consistent with annotations. It adds behavioral context by detailing the return dict structure and honest status values, which helps the agent understand the output shape. It does not disclose any side effects or prerequisites, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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: it opens with the mapping scope, lists pillars, describes the return format, and closes with an example. Each sentence contributes useful information, though a slightly terser phrasing could improve conciseness without losing substance.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by fully spelling out the return dict structure and providing an example. It also cross-references compliance_frameworks for further context. The main gap is a lack of explicit error handling or when-to-use guidance, but given the tool's simplicity, this is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaning by showing the exact invocation example `compliance_mapping()` and clarifying that the tool takes no arguments, which is helpful for correct 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 maps a specific standard (《工控系统网络安全防护指南》) to iaiops governance, with specific pillars and status taxonomy. It distinguishes itself from the sibling compliance_frameworks by focusing on this one framework, making the purpose 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 provides an explicit alternative reference: 'See compliance_frameworks for the full cross-framework 对照,' which guides users needing broader coverage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other compliance siblings, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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