get_risk_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it explicitly says 'Read-only; no side effects,' and discloses important behaviors such as tombstoned CO exclusion, delegation-aware rollup, and row-shape differences across scopes. This is highly transparent about what the caller can expect.

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 one-sentence summary front-loads the core idea, and the three scope bullets are dense—each earns its place by adding distinct usage context. There is no filler or repetition of what the schema already says.

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 no annotations, modest schema detail, and rich scope-specific behavior, this description is remarkably complete. It documents row shape, exclusions, scope semantics, delegation behavior, and covers the necessary context for selecting among the three main use cases.

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 description greatly expands on the schema's scope/scope_id details by explaining exactly how each scope value changes scope_id's interpretation and what fields/rows appear. server_version still lacks any explanation, which prevents a perfect score, but the coverage of the two non-trivial parameters is strong.

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 leads with a specific definition: 'Prioritized Risk View — one row per live Control Objective — at a chosen scope.' It clearly names the resource and action, and the three scope modes establish how this view is a risk-aggregation tool distinct from simple listing or editing tools.

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?

Each scope branch includes explicit use guidance: 'Use to triage which COs need attention on one model', 'Use for posture queries spanning multiple models', and 'Use for a portfolio/audit-scope posture rollup.' It gives strong when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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