run_compliance_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts an execution and returns instance details, which indicates an asynchronous operation, but it does not mention whether the compliance plan run is read-only or may modify device configurations. For an execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by brief background on compliance plans and a clear statement of the return behavior. Each sentence contributes to understanding, though the second sentence could be integrated without losing meaning, so it is not perfectly minimal.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers core invocation details: what it does, what it returns, and the nature of the plan. However, the missing safety/effect information is a gap, but that is already penalized under transparency. Overall, the description is sufficient for basic usage.

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 explains the single parameter 'name' as 'The name of the compliance plan to run,' and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics—like format, examples, or valid sources for the name—beyond what the schema already states.

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' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly notes it 'starts a compliance plan execution and returns the running instance details.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_compliance_plans (list) and describe_compliance_report (describe).

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 implies usage for starting a compliance plan execution, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing plans with get_compliance_plans or describing a report). There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implied, not clearly contrasted with siblings.

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