check_ai_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the classification task. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects). No contradiction detected.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be structured to list the return values or key input aspects, but overall it is efficiently brief.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the inputs or what the output format looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 8 parameters, but it does not explain any of them. Parameter names like usesAI, annexIII, or socialScoring are left entirely to the agent's interpretation, adding no value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to classify the system's risk under the EU AI Act and return obligations with deadlines. It uses specific verbs ('classify', 'return') and refers to a distinct regulatory framework, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_project or check_compliance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_compliance, scan_project). There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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