get_compliance_assessment

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already declare the tool's safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. It does not disclose potential partial results, performance characteristics, or access 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates core purpose in 8 words, earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should outline return format or examples, but it does not. The tool also lacks clarified behavior when both parameters are absent or provided. The openWorldHint annotation is not expanded upon.

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 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning; it simply mirrors the parameter names ('policy' and 'control'). No further constraints or relationships are explained.

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 function: get compliance assessment results. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get compliance assessment results') and differentiates from sibling tools like get_grc_risk or list_compliance_policies that serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a policy or control sys_id, or explain what happens if neither parameter is provided. Agents cannot discern usage context.

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