check_config_compliance

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a valuable behavioral detail: checks are 'deterministic regex checks with framework references', so results are reproducible between reviewers. It also enumerates what the check covers. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'run ... over config' wording and the input being a config text make side effects unlikely, so this is a minor gap only.

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 well-structured sentences: the first announces the operation and its checklist; the second adds the determinism guarantee. The highest-value information is front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted.

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 compliance checker, the description clearly defines scope and inputs, but with no output schema it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail per check, a report, violations only). It also gives no hint about how vendor detection or the optional vendor hint affects results. These are moderate gaps for an agent that must invoke the tool and interpret its result.

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 the schema already documents both `config` and the optional `vendor` hint. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond naming what the config contains, which meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a CIS/PCI starter pack over one network device config') and enumerates the precise artifacts it checks, from telnet/SSH status to idle timeout. This makes the tool's function immediately recognizable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like explain_config_diff or audit_mcp_config, which address different artifacts.

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 the intended use — checking a single network device's config against CIS/PCI concerns — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. The context is reasonably clear, yet there is no direct usage guidance or alternative routing.

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