probo_risks

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

The description discloses the required read scope ('integrations:probo:read'), indicating a read-only operation, and adds governance context ('Arbiter constitutional policy' and 'ProofLink cryptographic receipt'). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden effectively.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose and output fields; the second adds essential requirements and behavioral context. No superfluous words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key output fields, and governance context. It lacks details on pagination or ordering but is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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?

There are no parameters (0, 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as none exist.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Probo compliance risks', specifying the returned fields ('severity level and status'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'probo_controls' or 'probo_summary' which likely cover different aspects.

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 provides a scope requirement but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., probo_controls, probo_summary). There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to choose for related tasks.

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