assess_change_risk

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 extensively details output format, strict length limits on reasoning/advice, forbidden content, and instructs a conservative approach. This goes far beyond a basic description and fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 longer than average but well-structured into clear sections (classification criteria, output format, examples, forbidden content). Every section adds necessary detail for the tool's constrained output. The examples efficiently illustrate the expected reasoning and advice style. It earns a 4 because while not minimal, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description provides a full JSON output template, examples, and strict constraints. This makes the tool's behavior and return value crystal clear. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers classification logic, output format, and edge-case restrictions, making it exceptionally complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited semantic value beyond what is provided. It does give examples of how diff content influences classification, but this is implicit rather than explicit parameter-level guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Classify code change risk.' It further defines risk levels (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) and examples, making the tool's function unmistakable. There are no siblings to differentiate from, but the description is highly specific and unambiguous.

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 usage through the input parameters (e.g., diff, context_hint for pre-commit/pre-deploy) and provides no exclusions. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or alternative recommendations, but since no sibling tools exist, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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