explain_risk_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool explains but lacks details on behavioral traits such as response format, potential errors (e.g., for invalid scores), or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists all key aspects (tier, calculation, thresholds) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers what the tool explains but does not address behavioral aspects or output expectations, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simple schema.

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 100%, with the parameter 'score' documented as a number (0-10) to explain. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not specify parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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's purpose: to explain a Philidor risk score, including tier classification, calculation methodology, and thresholds. It specifies the verb 'explain' and the resource 'risk score,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on vault operations, comparisons, or searches rather than score interpretation.

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 implies usage when a user needs to understand a risk score's meaning, tiers, calculation, and thresholds. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_vault_risk_breakdown for detailed risk components) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in sibling tool differentiation.

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