scf_get_risk

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by using 'Get.' It adds useful behavioral context by listing the specific fields returned, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. No contradictions or hidden side effects are suggested.

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 a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of the returned fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description plus fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint provide enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The field list in the description compensates for the absent output schema, and no critical usage details are missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already include meaningful descriptions, including how to obtain the IDs from scf_list_organizations and scf_list_risks. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema is already self-sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one risk assessment') and enumerates the exact returned content: likelihood, inherent and residual impact scores, treatment plan, owner, and review date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_list_risks and scf_get_risk_summary.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single detailed risk assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as scf_list_risks, scf_get_risk_summary, or custom-risk getters. The schema's parameter descriptions hint at the workflow by pointing to scf_list_risks, but the description itself provides no direct usage guidance.

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