investigate_risk

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that it does not scan or execute tests, which helps set expectations for an 'investigate' tool. It does not, however, describe output format or permission requirements beyond that.

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 two sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion sentence is short and useful. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The description lists the topics covered by the guidance, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain how risk_id is obtained or formatted, does not define 'DASF,' and does not clarify how this tool relates to siblings such as get_risk or scope_risks. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has one required parameter, risk_id, with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly maps 'a DASF risk' to risk_id and provides no format, source, or usage guidance for the parameter. This leaves the agent with little beyond the parameter name and schema constraints.

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 that the tool provides guidance for investigating a DASF risk and enumerates the covered areas: trust boundary, failure hypothesis, evidence requests, bounded tests, and per-control acceptance criteria. It also clarifies that it does not scan or execute tests, which distinguishes it from an execution tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_risk.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Learn how to investigate a DASF risk,' suggesting the tool is for retrieving investigative methodology rather than performing the investigation. The negative constraint 'Does not scan or execute tests' provides one exclusion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_risk, scope_risks, or other siblings.

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