scope_risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing output content ('source citations and unspecified applicability') and the internal dedup step, though 'unspecified applicability' remains vague.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the output note and the scope caveat. Every sentence carries information; density is slightly hurt by unexplained shorthand.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what is returned. Annotations plus description cover the safety profile, inputs, and output at a level sufficient to invoke correctly; only the domain jargon ('DASF', 'Yes cells') leaves a small residual gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey meaningful semantics—each deployment pattern contributes 'Yes' cells that are unioned, with duplicates in linked controls collapsed—but it never explains the seven enum values or the minItems/maxItems constraint on deployment_patterns.

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?

States a specific verb (filter) and resource (DASF risks) and explains the operation: union of deployment-pattern 'Yes' cells followed by deduplication of linked controls. It's distinguishable from siblings like investigate_risk or get_risk, though the terms 'DASF' and 'Yes cells' are unexplained jargon that a fresh agent may not parse.

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?

'After classification' gives explicit sequencing relative to classify_system, and the closing line 'This is scoping, not a vulnerability finding' excludes misuse in place of investigate_risk. No explicit negative routing to a named sibling, but the when-to-use and when-not conditions are clear.

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