gia_run_patrol

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds valuable behavioral details: read-only posture checks, rejection of remediation packs, deterministic pass/fail for audit packs per NIST controls with no AI interpretation. No contradictions found.

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?

Four sentences, efficiently structured. First sentence states core purpose and read-only nature, second covers classification, third rejects alternative packs and names right tool, fourth details audit behavior. Front-loaded with key action and resource.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains outputs (findings, compliance evidence, deterministic pass/fail) and conditional behavior when scout_data is omitted. Annotations provide additional safety context. The tool's role in a larger environment is clear, especially with sibling tool mentions.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning: examples for pack_id, explanation of scout_data's dual role (if provided vs if absent returns command definitions), and condition for approved_by (required for high-sensitivity packs). This exceeds the basic schema descriptions.

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 executes patrol or audit packs for read-only posture checks, producing findings or compliance evidence. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gia_apply_pack by explicitly rejecting remediation/hardening packs. The verb 'execute' and resource 'patrol or audit pack' are 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?

Guidelines are explicit: use for patrol/audit packs, not for remediation/hardening packs (which require gia_apply_pack). It also explains sensitivity-based classification (advisory vs mandatory) and when approved_by is needed. The description provides clear context for when to supply scout_data vs leaving it absent.

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