lint_micar_whitepaper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that results are pending human review and that the tool degrades gracefully when the dependency is absent. However, it does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or output format specifics beyond mentioning 'cited candidate findings'.

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?

Two concise sentences that deliver purpose, key constraints, and behavioral notes without excess. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description adequately hints at return type. It covers main functionality and a dependency caveat. However, it could mention error cases or what 'install hint' entails.

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 only parameter, 'whitepaper_json', has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying it is the 'draft MiCAR white paper (JSON)', adding semantic meaning about the expected input format and content.

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 uses a specific verb 'lint' and identifies the resource as a 'draft MiCAR white paper (JSON)' against specific rules (Annex I-III). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_eu_ai_act_system or search_micar_register.

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 states the tool returns 'candidate findings pending human review' and mentions a required optional dependency (lint extra), giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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