compliancepass_report_md

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'completed in-session run' precondition, which is genuinely useful, but omits whether the report is generated on demand, what happens if the run is incomplete, and any auth or retention behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and format are stated before the qualifying condition. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 simple one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description identifies the format and scope of the returned artifact sufficiently for an agent to call it. It falls short only on edge cases such as incomplete runs or report-generation failures.

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% and the single run_id parameter is documented as coming from compliancepass_run. The description adds only the vague 'in-session run' phrasing, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (CompliancePass readiness report), and output format (Markdown). The 'Markdown' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling compliancepass_report_json, but the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Adds a qualifying precondition ('for a completed in-session run'), which implies when the tool applies, and the sibling JSON report is indirectly implied by the format. However, it does not state when to prefer the JSON variant, nor what to do if the run is not yet complete.

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