keel_list_risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers return contents thoroughly and discloses the exact sort order (status first, then level, then score) with an illustrative example. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is strong transparency.

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 efficiently structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the complete field list and then the sorting rule. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by naming all return fields and specifying ordering. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result without further clarification.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description instead adds value by explaining the output structure, which is the most relevant semantic information for this call.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the workspace risk register'), and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list tools such as keel_list_vendors or keel_list_controls. The scope is 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 clearly implies this tool should be used when the agent needs the contents of the risk register. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling list tools or mention any exclusions or preconditions, so usage guidance is reasonable but only implied.

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