Assess a single module's bus factor and risk tier by mapping who authored or reviewed it, whether they remain active, and how load-bearing it is via PageRank.
Bus factor and risk tier of ONE module: who holds its knowledge (authored vs reviewed share), whether they are still active, how load-bearing the module is (PageRank). Use for 'how risky is X', 'bus factor of X'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes | ||
| tenant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical methodology (authored vs reviewed share, contributor activity, PageRank) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The behavioral profile is partially but not fully covered.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, component signals, and usage cues without filler. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every clause earns 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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must do more legwork. It conveys what signals are analyzed but not how results are shaped or what the tenant scoping does. Adequate for the core intent, incomplete on scoping and return behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'module' identifies a single target, but the 'tenant' parameter is never mentioned and its meaning/default is left entirely to inference. Half the parameters remain unexplained.
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?
States a specific analysis verb (bus factor and risk tier) on a specific resource (ONE module), and enumerates the constituent signals: authorship/review share, contributor activity, and PageRank load-bearing. The emphatic 'ONE' implicitly contrasts with multi-module siblings like risk_scan and keystones.
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?
Provides concrete usage triggers via quoted user phrasings ('how risky is X', 'bus factor of X'), which maps intent to tool cleanly. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer risk_scan or who_knows), so it is clear context without explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.