check_risk

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

The description discloses that the tool returns risk level and approval requirement and is lighter than evaluate_action. With no annotations provided, it moderately compensates by indicating the tool is read-like and partial, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a bulleted list of arguments. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It lacks only minor details about parameter constraints or advanced behavior, but is complete enough for correct usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description elaborates on the parameters: action_type is 'the kind of operation' and target is 'the system being acted upon.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles, though it could be more precise with examples or constraints.

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 performs a 'Quick risk check for an action type + target combination' and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling evaluate_action by noting it is 'lighter'. This provides a specific verb and resource, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 indicates this tool is 'lighter than evaluate_action' and returns only risk level and approval requirement, implying it should be used for quick checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites or alternatives beyond evaluate_action.

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