scf_get_risk_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose permissions, error handling, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic operation.

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 (15 words) that is front-loaded and perfectly scoped. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (aggregate risk summary with breakdowns), fulfilling the agent's need to understand its output.

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 parameter org_id is fully described in the schema with format and a hint to obtain it from scf_list_organizations. The description does not add extra semantic value beyond the schema coverage (100%). 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 clearly states it retrieves an organization's aggregate risk summary and specifies what it includes (totals by severity, treatment status breakdown, trend data). This distinguishes it from siblings like scf_get_risk (single risk) and scf_list_risks (list of risks).

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 aggregate overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like scf_get_risk or scf_list_risks. No exclusion criteria or contextual guidance is provided.

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