check_config_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that there are ten deterministic checks, each returning a framework reference and a remediation line, and it lists the concrete checks. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, offline, or if any network/device access is required, though 'over one device config' implies offline analysis.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, then efficiently lists checks, output characteristics, and supported vendors. Every clause adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to explain those. What is missing is explicit treatment of the `vendor` parameter and clearer routing guidance versus siblings. For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is otherwise quite complete, but those gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It makes clear that `config` is a device config and that supported vendors are Cisco, MikroTik, EdgeOS, and OPNsense. However, it never explicitly ties these vendors to the `vendor` parameter, does not state that `vendor` is optional or what happens when it is empty, and provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('CIS/PCI starter pack over one device config'), and enumerates the exact check categories. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like sanitize_config or explain_config_diff by defining a distinct compliance-checking behavior.

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: it operates over one device config and supports four named vendors, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, such as pointing to sanitize_config for cleanup or explain_config_diff for change understanding.

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