evaluate_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool collects evidence from scans and optionally saves an evidence bundle, indicating a side effect. However, it does not specify if any modifications occur, required permissions, or behavior if evidence already exists. The description is moderately transparent but could be more explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and frameworks. Every sentence adds value: first defines scope, second explains process, third notes optional save. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description covers the main purpose and optional save, but lacks details on output format or return value (e.g., what does 'evaluate' produce? Controls pass/fail?). It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., prior scans needed) or whether network access is required. Given no output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool evaluates controls using evidence from multiple sources (code scans, SBOM, vulnerabilities, hallucination detection), which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions. This provides context that enhances understanding of how parameters like 'frameworks' and 'save_evidence' fit into the overall process.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'project against compliance frameworks', listing specific frameworks (SOC2-technical, GDPR-technical, AIUC-1). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_compliance_controls and scan_* tools by focusing on a holistic compliance evaluation rather than individual scans or control listings.

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 usage for compliance evaluation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compliance_controls or sbom_* tools. No exclusions or context-specific guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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