compliancepass_run

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses some return content, including gaps, next actions, and an in-session run id, but it does not state whether the scan modifies the repository, what permissions are needed, or how runs are scoped or repeated.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the action and then summarizing the return value. The historical EnterprisePass sentence is brief and earns its place by clarifying product aliasing.

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 run tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates expected outputs and notes product aliasing. However, with no annotations and many related report/status siblings, it remains incomplete on side effects, permissions, and when to choose this tool over the alternatives.

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 all three parameters. The description mentions the local repo path but adds no format, default, or semantic detail beyond the schema for repo_path, target_sha, or target_name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: run CompliancePass against a local repo path. It clearly states the product scope, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as compliancepass_status, compliancepass_report_json, or compliancepass_report_md.

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?

It implies the tool is used to run CompliancePass against a local repository, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. The EnterprisePass alias note is not usage guidance.

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