check_compliance

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

The description details the tool's behavior: scanning the project, detecting platforms and data processing, auto-deriving facts, and returning an agentPrompt. This aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds context about what happens during execution.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently conveys key information, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains inputs, process, and output format ('agentPrompt'). It covers when to use and what to expect, leaving little ambiguity for an AI 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. It adds minimal extra context, e.g., that markets are required for 'ready' status and optional params override derived values. This provides some added meaning 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 this is a 'Read-only compliance readiness check' that detects missing processing activities, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('compliance readiness'). It also distinguishes it from sibling tool 'make_compliant' by positioning it as a precursor.

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 explicitly states when to run: 'after adding any SDK, analytics, payment, auth or AI integration' and 'before make_compliant when you want to confirm facts first'. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use.

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