risk_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (a ranking plus tier counts), which is useful, but says nothing about cost, scan scope, pagination, or permissions.

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 tight sentences: the ranking/counting behavior is front-loaded, followed by trigger examples. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose and output semantics adequately for a small two-param tool, but with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param coverage, the meaning of limit and tenant is left entirely to inference.

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% and both parameters (limit, tenant) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain whether 'limit' caps the ranked list or the scan scope, nor what 'tenant' filters.

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 verb (rank), resource (every tracked module), and the risk scale (critical/high/medium/low) plus tier counting. The scope word 'every' distinguishes it from the per-module sibling module_risk, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 three concrete natural-language trigger phrasings ('what is most at risk', 'where are we fragile', 'orphaned code') that map intent to the tool. No explicit exclusions or contrast with siblings like module_risk or keystones.

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