scf_get_risk_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates 'ready for visualization' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Basic purpose is clear but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. The description efficiently communicates what the tool does.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the matrix size and intent. Could be more detailed about the return format (e.g., a 5x5 grid of values), but overall sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (org_id is described in schema). No additional value.

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 tool returns the 5x5 risk matrix data, specifying the dimensions and purpose (visualization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scf_get_risk (single risk) and scf_get_risk_summary (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 use for visualization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_list_risks, scf_get_risk, or scf_get_risk_summary. No when-not guidance is provided.

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