risk_evaluate_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool evaluates risk and returns a JSON string with risk level, score, recommended gate, reasons, and checklist. The 'before...mutates' phrasing strongly implies this tool itself is non-mutating, though it is not stated explicitly.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the body is organized into clear sections: Args, Returns, KB, and Example. The parameter list is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions, but the example using 'action="Example"' is too generic to add real value and the KB link is not expanded.

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?

Despite high complexity with ten parameters and no schema description coverage, the description fully documents the inputs, the output structure, and the intended usage moment. It also provides a KB pointer for deeper context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. It does so thoroughly by defining every one of the ten parameters, including meaningful values for operation_type and estimated_scope, and clarifying the boolean flags such as destructive, requires_compile, affects_runtime, and touches_source.

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 first sentence is a specific and unambiguous statement of purpose: 'Evaluate action risk before an autonomous agent mutates the project.' This clearly identifies the tool's verb, resource, and timing, and distinguishes it from the many mutating sibling tools in the list.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before an autonomous agent mutates the project. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over direct mutation or validation siblings.

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