klaxon_posture_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never emits the salt, omits PII, returns only counts/booleans/statuses, and reports 'unknown' when the indexer is unreachable. This goes far beyond a basic safety profile.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: it covers output format, constraints, error behavior, and parameter semantics. The structure with paragraphs and an Args list is clear and appropriately front-loaded with the most critical safety guarantees.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and complex behavior, and the description fully explains return values, statuses, and edge cases (e.g., unreachable indexer). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, what it outputs, and what it avoids doing, making it complete for an agent.

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 input schema only provides titles and defaults, but the description's Args section explains the semantic role of each parameter (e.g., tenant specifies which masked/quarantine streams and RBAC roles are checked). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not detail types or constraints beyond defaults.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only security/DSGVO posture check that returns facts and gaps, never a verdict. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling gdpr_check by referencing the same principle, ensuring no confusion with similar 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 implies when to use the tool (for posture checks) and references gdpr_check as a sibling with the same principle, offering some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other siblings or provide exclusions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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