score_risk_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (score, per-factor breakdown, recommendation) and lists the key factors considered, giving insight into how the risk is assessed. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though a scoring tool is inherently read-only) or any limitations, leaving some room for improvement.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence clearly states the action and scale, the second lists factors and outputs. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 is mostly complete for a scoring tool: it covers purpose, scale, inputs (via factors), and outputs. There is an output schema (though not shown) and nested object inputs, but the description does not detail edge cases, data format requirements, or error conditions. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description provides adequate but not exhaustive context.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions factors like 'inbound references, test coverage, file size, circular deps,' which indirectly relate to the inputs, but it does not explain the structure or format of dep_graph and scan_result, nor the exact meaning of symbol and file beyond their names. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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's function: 'Score the risk of changing a symbol' with a defined scale (0-100). It identifies the specific resource (symbol) and the action (scoring risk), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_health_score_tool, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 implies use when assessing the risk of modifying a symbol, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The factors listed (inbound references, test coverage, etc.) imply the intended context, but there is no 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools.

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