get_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the result type ('enriched active violations') and parameter effects, but omits traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the output, followed by a bullet list of parameters. No redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics. It could mention potential result limits but is otherwise sufficient for a filtered-list 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: it explains 'namespace' as a Kubernetes namespace, 'engine' lists valid string values (gatekeeper, kyverno, azure_policy), 'min_severity' defines ordering (critical to info), and 'cluster' clarifies multi-cluster usage.

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 returns 'all active violations enriched with compliance framework refs', specifying the resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'explain_violation' or 'get_compliance_risk_summary', which handle different 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as for a summary vs. detailed list. No context on typical use cases or alternatives is given.

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