compliance_report

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral details: the '[READ][risk=low]' prefix, the full report contents, truncation behavior with a hint to pass `out_path`, and the exact return dict structure. It also clarifies the tool is not a certification, enriching the agent's understanding of side effects and limitations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (summary, Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence adds value—no fluff or tautology. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to convey truncation behavior, return format, and parameter semantics.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers all essential context: what the report contains, return dict fields, truncation behavior, and a concrete example. The agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: `level` with accepted values ('l2'/'l3', '二级'/'三级', '2'/'3', omit for both), `site` as the name stamped on the title page, and `out_path` as a required file path when the report exceeds the inline bound. It even provides an example call, making parameter usage unmistakable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render the 等保 2.0 / IEC 62443 compliance report (Markdown)'—clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling compliance tools by emphasizing it produces a deliverable document for a CISO and explicitly notes it is 'NOT a certification', setting it apart from raw mapping or evidence tools.

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 clear usage context: it is an 'onboarding/self-assessment aid' and includes an explicit exclusion ('NOT a certification'). It also gives actionable guidance on when `out_path` is required (when report exceeds ~400 lines). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools from the sibling list, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance on when to use alternatives.

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