score_risk

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

The description discloses that the tool aggregates lock risk and data loss potential into a score, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it is adequate but lacks explicit safety information.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and output range in the first sentence, and elaborating on the components and use case in the second. No redundant information.

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 explains the output (0-100 score) and what it comprises, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. It could provide more detail on interpretation, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is complete enough.

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?

Both parameters (filename and sql) have descriptions in the input schema with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates a combined risk score (0-100) for SQL migrations, specifying the aggregated factors (lock risk severity and data loss potential). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_migration or detect_conflicts, which serve different purposes.

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 mentions the tool is useful for CI gates and automated migration review pipelines, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools cover related but distinct tasks.

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