get_model_risk_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tombstoned COs are excluded, implying a filtering behavior. The description also implies a read-only operation through the 'get' prefix and the nature of the output (derived risk view). However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, authorization requirements, or potential performance characteristics. The behavioral details are sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: first sentence defines the output, second provides usage guidance, and third adds important exclusions and pairing recommendations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 that an output schema exists (context indicates 'has output schema: true'), the description is not required to detail return values, but it does so anyway with specificity. It covers the tool's core functionality, usage context, filtering behavior, and complementary tools, making it complete for a read-only data retrieval 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?

With schema description coverage at 50% (only model_id has a description), the description should compensate for the undocumented server_version parameter but does not. It only indirectly references the model_id in the name and usage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to clarify the role of server_version or its expected format.

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 the tool's purpose: returning one row per live Control Objective with derived risk metrics (risk tier, asset impact, attacker likelihood, coverage counts, open finding count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tag_risk_view and get_system_risk_view by specifying it is model-specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'triage which COs need attention on a specific model.' It also explains that a single call is sufficient because rows already contain coverage_ratio and open_findings, eliminating the need for per-CO fan-out. Additionally, it advises on when not to use it (tombstoned COs excluded) and suggests pairing with get_threat_model for historical context.

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