defensetech_check_cui_distribution_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'check' and 'reports applicable=false' without explaining side effects, return format, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that may affect state or require specific permissions.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. There is no redundant text, and every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits parameter semantics, return values, error handling, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'cui_categorization' or 'distribution_statement'. It references the tier concept but does not map to the required parameter, leaving the agent to infer the connection.

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 it checks for required distribution statement on CUI-Specified+ tier events and mentions behavior for other tiers. The verb 'check' + resource 'distribution_statement' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools targeting different compliance aspects.

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 implies when to use (for CUI-Specified+ tier) and when not (PUBLIC/CUI-BASIC report applicable=false). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about its role relative to other validation tools.

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