Api risk scenarios list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral — its only content is an internal serializer detail that gives an agent no understanding of filtering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is wasted on an implementation note rather than front-loading purpose or scope. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 29-parameter, filter-heavy list endpoint with no output schema and no parameter docs, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to paginate, filter, or order results from this text.

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 29 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It documents none of them (limit, offset, search, max_pages, ordering, owner, folder, perimeter, treatment, within_tolerance, etc.), leaving an agent to guess filter syntax and value formats.

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 'Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context' is a developer implementation note (a Django view override), not a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never says this lists risk scenarios or what is returned; only the name hints at it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many risk_scenarios siblings (retrieve, per_status_retrieve, export_csv_retrieve, count_per_level_retrieve), and no prerequisites. The single sentence describes internal code behavior, not invocation context.

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