sentrul_compliance_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns findings + severity,' which gives some insight into output behavior, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. For a scanning tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that convey core functionality and a disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (scanning for compliance patterns), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure of returned findings, severity levels, error cases, or limitations. For a tool with two parameters and behavioral uncertainty, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'text' parameter is the input to scan and lists compliance frameworks (PII, PCI, HIPAA, GDPR) that relate to the 'frameworks' parameter. However, it doesn't fully explain parameter semantics, such as allowed values for 'frameworks' or format expectations for 'text.' The baseline is 3 due to some added meaning but incomplete coverage.

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's purpose: 'Scan text for common compliance patterns (PII, PCI, HIPAA, GDPR data).' It specifies the verb ('scan'), resource ('text'), and scope ('compliance patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentrul_research' or 'sentrul_trace_lookup,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions what the tool does but offers no explicit advice on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The disclaimer 'Not legal advice' is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidelines for tool selection.

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