assess_risk

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a pure text pattern match, that suvadu does not execute, inspect the filesystem, or sandbox, and that enforcement is the caller's responsibility. This negative-space disclosure precisely prevents the dangerous misreading of the tool.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads purpose, scale, and timing; the second preempts the most likely misconception about execution and side effects. No padding.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it adequately conveys both the input contract and the shape of the result (a rating plus the matched rule). It could say a bit more about the return structure or batch results, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, documenting both 'command' and 'commands' with examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how single vs batch assessment differs, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 (Rate) plus resource (a command), the output scale (safe/low/medium/high/critical), the timing (BEFORE running it), and a secondary output (the matched rule). An agent immediately understands the function without opening the schema.

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 'BEFORE running it' clause gives clear timing guidance that tells the agent where this fits in a workflow. However, it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, and no sibling tool covers risk scoring to disambiguate against.

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