fde-agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (return risk levels) and mentions grounding in an incident ontology, but it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects or clarify behavior when both 'bpmn' and 'sample' parameters are provided. The use of 'or' hints at mutual exclusivity but isn't 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and structured output, followed by input options. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return format (per-node RED/AMBER/GREEN on three axes) and input options. It lacks exact output structure details, but the core information needed to invoke and interpret results is present.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds the 'either/or' relationship between 'bpmn' and 'sample', which is a small but useful clarification beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: analyze an agentic AI workflow and return per-node RED/AMBER/GREEN risk across three specific axes. The verb 'analyze' and the specific risk categories make the purpose unambiguous, even without sibling tools for differentiation.

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 context is clear: this is a diagnostic 'pre-mortem' tool for agentic workflows. It implies usage when you need to assess failure, security, or handoff risks. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the lack of sibling tools makes this less critical.

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