check_fips_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the process (compliance checks, key length verification, mapping to controls) and the output (JSON report). It does not mention side effects or limitations, but is generally transparent for a validation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a brief explanation followed by clear parameter and return value descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return type. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' block adds full semantics: 'algorithms' is a comma-separated list, 'scan_text' is optional source code. This compensates completely for the missing 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 validates cryptographic algorithms against FIPS 140-3, with specific verbs 'Validate' and 'Checks'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_cnsa_compliance' and 'assess_pqc_readiness' by focusing on FIPS compliance and mapping to NIST controls.

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 for FIPS compliance validation and mentions specific checks (key lengths, security strength). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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