check_compliance

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), description adds key behaviors: never modifies files, errors on invalid dir/path, and explains return value structure including 'agentPrompt' for dev agent. No contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage; every sentence adds value. Slightly long but dense with information, no 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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return object fields and 'ready' condition. Covers error conditions, iterative workflow, and required parameters. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds context like 'markets are a required human fact' and 'overrides the derived one' for entity/appName, enriching meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb ('Read-only compliance readiness check') and resource ('project'), with specific use case after adding integrations. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like make_compliant by indicating it's a precursor check.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('after adding any SDK, analytics, payment, auth or AI integration') and when not to (implies not for full generation, as call before make_compliant). Provides iterative re-run strategy until 'ready' is true.

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