get_model_risk_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions tombstoned COs are excluded and that the result includes coverage_ratio and open_findings. However, it does not disclose if it is read-only, auth requirements, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load purpose and then provide usage guidance. No wasted words, and structure is logical.

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's complexity (risk view with derived fields), the description explains key aspects like one row per live CO and exclusion of tombstoned. Output schema exists but is not shown, so description doesn't need to detail return values. Additional context on risk tier derivation or data recency would improve completeness, but current level is sufficient.

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 50% (only model_id described). The description emphasizes 'per-model' for model_id but provides no additional info on server_version. For a low coverage baseline of 3, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 provides a per-model prioritized risk view with specific columns (risk tier, asset impact, etc.). It distinguishes itself by being per-model and mentions pairing with get_threat_model for historical context, differentiating from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says use to triage which control objectives need attention on a specific model and notes that a single call suffices, avoiding fan-out. It also advises pairing with get_threat_model for historical context, providing clear usage context.

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