get_system_risk_view

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains the output structure but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, performance implications, or prerequisites. Adequate but could be more transparent about side effects or restrictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the tool's value and usage context.

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?

With output schema present and sibling reference, the description is comprehensive for a get operation. Could include note on read-only nature or data freshness, but overall very good.

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 description coverage is 50% (only system_id documented). The description does not add any parameter-specific details, especially for server_version which lacks schema description. Description should compensate but does not.

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 system-level cross-model prioritized risk view, one row per live control objective across models in a system. It distinguishes from get_model_risk_view by noting added model_id and model_title per row.

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 for posture queries spanning multiple models in the same product or service.' References get_model_risk_view as alternative and explains the benefit of grouping/filtering without extra lookup.

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