get_posture

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses the nature of the return data (compliance scores, failing gates, call counts) and implies a read-only action via 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, requires specific permissions, or has any rate limits or data freshness caveats.

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 well-structured: the first paragraph states purpose and outputs, the second paragraph provides practical usage examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. It is concise yet comprehensive without being verbose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing the return elements and example questions. It could have added a note about read-only nature or data boundaries, but overall it is complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add any parameter information. It doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('AI governance posture'), and breaks down specific outputs (per-framework compliance scores, failing gates, unattested call count). This is a specific, action-oriented explanation that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_gates, which is more narrowly about gates.

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 clear usage context by listing example user questions that this tool answers ('How compliant are we with the EU AI Act?', 'Which frameworks have gaps?'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the examples effectively guide when to use this tool versus a more specific one.

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