Risk Assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output is an execution-mode classification (Full Autonomy / Mixed / Structured) with a human gate count, clarifying what 'risk assessment' concretely produces. Consistent with annotations (no contradiction).

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, zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence states the return value efficiently. Every word 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?

The description states inputs (path, task via 'planned task') and outputs (execution mode, human gate count), which is adequate for calling. However, it never explains what the '4 dimensions' are, what 'human gate count' represents, or how this differs from gap_analysis/full_diagnose. With no output schema present, the description carries the full burden for return semantics, and those semantics stay vague.

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 50%: 'path' is documented but 'task' is not. The description's phrase 'planned task' implicitly maps to the task parameter, but it doesn't elaborate the '4 dimensions' that presumably drive the assessment, nor does it clarify task format. It partially compensates for the uncovered task parameter but leaves meaning to inference.

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 a specific purpose: '4-dimension risk assessment for a planned task' and what it returns (execution mode + human gate count). It's unambiguous about the tool's function, but it doesn't differentiate from several similar analysis siblings like gap_analysis, full_diagnose, or audit_360 — an agent would struggle to know which to pick for a given scenario.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set full of overlapping analysis tools (gap_analysis, full_diagnose, audit_360, dependency_risk), the absence of any 'use this when...' or 'for X use Y instead' guidance is a notable gap.

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