Run Compliance Plan

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds context by noting it 'starts a compliance plan execution and returns the running instance details,' which suggests an asynchronous or long-running behavior and that the immediate result is not the final outcome. It also mentions it runs 'against network devices,' aligning with openWorldHint=true. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the purpose of compliance plans, and the third clarifies what the tool does and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, clear annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the domain (network devices), and the return behavior (running instance details). Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. It could mention whether the execution is asynchronous or how to track progress, but that is not essential for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter, 'name,' with a clear description ('The name of the compliance plan to run'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but none are needed because the schema already covers it. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action: 'Execute a compliance plan against network devices.' It also explains what compliance plans are (validate configurations) and that the tool 'starts a compliance plan execution and returns the running instance details.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_compliance_plans (which lists plans) and describe_compliance_report (which describes reports). The verb 'execute' plus the resource is specific and 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 gives context by explaining what compliance plans do ('validate device configurations against organizational standards'), which implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct guidance such as 'use get_compliance_plans to list plans instead.' The usage is implied rather than clearly differentiated from sibling tools.

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