scf_get_risk_matrix

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the output shape (5×5) and semantic content (risk distribution across likelihood × impact), which goes beyond what the annotation alone provides. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but those are low-risk concerns for a matrix read.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The most important identifying information (5×5 risk matrix data) is front-loaded, followed by the distribution semantics and visualization purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read operation with a read-only annotation, the description is largely complete. It explains what the output represents well enough for an agent to know what to expect, even without an output schema. It could be marginally stronger by noting whether this covers standard and custom risks, but that is not a blocking gap.

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 fully documents org_id, including how to obtain it via scf_list_organizations, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage. A baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 identifies a specific resource (5×5 risk matrix data), a specific action (Get), and clarifies the matrix dimensions and axes (likelihood × impact). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as scf_get_risk and scf_get_risk_summary, which focus on individual risks or summarized counts rather than a visualization-ready matrix.

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 phrase 'risk distribution across likelihood × impact, ready for visualization' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs matrix-shaped data for visual presentation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5, but the intended use case is still clear.

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