scf_get_risk_summary

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the kind of data returned (severity totals, treatment status, trends), which is useful, but it does not clarify behaviors like time-range scope, data freshness, or whether the summary is computed on demand versus pre-aggregated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource and then lists the key data components. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to obtain the required org_id. Nothing critical is 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 description coverage is 100%: org_id is described with 'Organization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations', which already tells the agent where to get the value. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('organization's aggregate risk summary'), then enumerates the contained data: totals by severity, treatment status breakdown, and trend data. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like scf_get_risk and scf_list_risks, which target individual risks or lists rather than an org-level aggregate.

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 'organization's aggregate risk summary' provides clear context that this tool is for high-level, org-wide rollup data, implying it is not for individual risk details or risk lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intent is reasonably apparent given the description.

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