check_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fully discloses traits: honest provenance, 'not_evaluable' for missing data, partial coverage of 'disk_encryption', and specific details about 'guest_config_extension'. It sets accurate expectations about limits and data sources.

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 fairly concise for the complexity, front-loading the main purpose and then efficiently explaining key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly sharper (e.g., avoid repeating 'not_evaluable' multiple times).

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 (4 parameters, 5 controls, output schema), the description covers essential behavioral aspects and edge cases (e.g., partial controls, provenance). It doesn't detail the output schema fields or all response formats, but those are handled by the output schema. The description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameters; it focuses on general behavior rather than enriching parameter meanings. The provenance detail pertains to output, not input semantics.

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: 'Evaluate named security/governance controls and report where each verdict came from.' It uses a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('controls'), and the mention of provenance distinguishes it from typical compliance tools. Siblings are different (patch status, query resources), and this description uniquely defines its scope.

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 checks and provides details on control behaviors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'query_resources' or 'get_patch_status'. No direct guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is given.

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