inkog_compliance_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Analyzes agent code and maps findings to regulatory requirements' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output structure. Lacks depth 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and regulatory scope. Every sentence is meaningful with no wasted words.

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 output schema, the description could better describe the nature of the report (e.g., structure, risk levels). It explains what the tool does but not what to expect from the result. Complex enough that more detail would help, but the 3 parameters are well-documented.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about analyzing code and regulatory mapping, but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Clearly states it generates compliance reports for specific regulatory frameworks (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, etc.) and analyzes agent code. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like inkog_mcp_scan or inkog_deep_scan by focusing on compliance mapping.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when preparing AI agents for regulatory compliance or audit.' Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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