make_compliant

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

The description discloses key behaviors: writes to /legal directory, installs snippet in HTML head, and returns summary/missing facts. With annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds context (e.g., no mention of file overwriting or side effects). It is adequate but does not elaborate on potential impacts or failure modes.

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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core action, immediately follows with usage guidance, and ends with expected output. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a clear overview of inputs, actions, outputs, and usage context. It explains what gets modified (files in /legal, HTML head) and what the agent can expect as return. Completeness is slightly diminished by not describing the return format in detail, but overall it is sufficient.

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 78%, so the schema already explains most parameters (7 of 9 have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema. One parameter (accent) has no description in schema or description, but baseline 3 is appropriate given coverage.

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: a one-step legal compliance action that scans, generates policies, installs a cookie banner, and classifies AI risk. It explicitly says 'Use this first when the user asks to make their app legally compliant', 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this first when the user asks to make their app legally compliant, GDPR-ready, or to add a privacy policy or cookie banner.' This helps the agent choose this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which would strengthen the guidance.

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