get_system_risk_view

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output structure and the added model context, but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the call is destructive (though from name it's read-only). The description adds some value but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 remarkably concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and differentiate from the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the system concept and the additional columns compared to get_model_risk_view. However, it does not mention any filtering, pagination, or limits, which would enhance completeness for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only system_id has a description in schema), and the description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema provides. The server_version parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 returns a system-level cross-model risk view with one row per live Control Objective across all models in a system, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_model_risk_view by noting additional columns (model_id and model_title).

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 explicitly says 'Use for posture queries spanning multiple models in the same product or service' and compares the output shape to get_model_risk_view, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives beyond the direct sibling.

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