ad_run_compliance_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and the [READ] tag is the one genuinely useful behavioral disclosure, telling the agent this is a non-mutating operation. Beyond that it says nothing about where the rules come from, whether they are configurable, what directory scope is scanned, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single sentence plus bracketed tags, front-loaded and free of padding. The category tag is arguably noise for selection purposes but is compact and harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an assessment tool the critical context is missing: which compliance rules are evaluated, whether they are built-in or supplied elsewhere, and the scope of the scan. The description is not complete enough for an agent to predict what the assessment actually checks.

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?

There is one parameter (correlation_id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not, leaving the agent to guess that it is an optional tracing identifier.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Executar avaliacao de conformidade baseada em regras" = run a rule-based compliance assessment), which is more than a tautology. However, it never says which rule set, which directory scope, or what the assessment covers, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby reporting siblings such as ad_generate_security_audit_report or ad_generate_domain_health_report.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many report-generating siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The [Reports, Inventory & Automation] tag implies a category but gives no selection criteria for an agent choosing among ~100 sibling tools.

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