run_risk_sentinel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only capability/tier/endpoint metadata (paid_ready, pioneer_plus) and the vague "before execution" framing; it never explains what the sentinel actually evaluates, what it returns, or what happens when all 18 parameters are omitted (0 required).

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?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no padding in volume. However, roughly half the text is bracketed capability/endpoint metadata that does little for tool selection, while the substantive part is front-loaded but severely compressed.

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?

For an 18-parameter, zero-required, enum-bearing tool with no output schema, a one-sentence description is far too thin. The agent has no information on which parameters are required for the route mode vs. the manual health mode, what a passing/failing result looks like, or how safetyMode alters behavior.

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 11% – only fromToken/toToken carry descriptions. The phrase "route or manual health/net-edge inputs" weakly gestures at the two input families (healthFactor/riskBufferUsd/liquidationBufferPct vs. gasUsd/bridgeFeeUsd/expectedUpsideUsd), but 16 of 18 parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, including the critical safetyMode and enforcePositive switches.

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?

"Run FarmDash Risk Sentinel on a route or manual health/net-edge inputs before execution" gives a verb and a resource, and implies a pre-execution risk check. But "Risk Sentinel" is a branded internal term with no definition, and nothing distinguishes it from the many risk-oriented siblings (simulate_transaction_risk, audit_allowance_risk, analyze_protocol_risk, get_protocol_risk_factors). An agent cannot tell which risk tool to pick from this sentence alone.

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?

"Before execution" is the only usage cue, and it is a timing hint rather than a routing rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over simulate_intent, simulate_transaction_risk, or policy_check_intent, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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