Compliance-evidence bundle

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reports state without failing, includes a tamper-evident sha256 hash, and outlines bundle contents. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence lists the bundle contents, and the second clarifies the purpose. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the bundle includes and that it reports state without failing. Complete for its complexity.

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 single parameter 'projectDir' has a clear schema description. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is straightforward, meeting the baseline.

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 generates a 'commit-stamped compliance-evidence bundle' and lists its contents (verdict, findings, CDD score, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it reports state without failing, making it unique among the sibling tools.

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 clarifies that this tool produces evidence, not a gate, implying it should be used when reporting state rather than enforcing compliance. It implicitly distinguishes from other tools like docguard_guard, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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