scf_get_risk_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the viewer-role authorization and the auto-created default behavior when the profile is unset. The '(read — viewer role)' phrasing aligns with the annotation, so there is no direct contradiction; 'auto-created' is best interpreted as system-side default provisioning rather than a user-facing write.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a compact definition of the return value and one behavioral note about defaults. Every sentence 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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the role required, and the behavior when the profile is unset. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 already documents org_id as a UUID and tells the agent to obtain it from scf_list_organizations, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the organization's risk profile') and immediately defines what the risk profile is: 'severity thresholds that band the 5×5 matrix into low, medium, high and critical.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_get_risk_matrix, which would return the matrix itself.

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 states the read-only nature, the viewer role, and the auto-created default behavior, giving an agent clear context for when a call will succeed even if no profile has been configured. It does not explicitly name alternatives for other risk-related lookups, but for a simple getter the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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