grc_risk_register_scan

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

The description adds some execution context—routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope—which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not explain the destructive nature flagged by destructiveHint=true or describe any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves the most important behavioral trait to structured metadata.

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 compact and has a clear structure: action, routing context, then arguments. However, the opening sentence is largely redundant with the tool name, and no domain-specific detail about the risk-register scan is included, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the agent is left to infer the tool's actual domain behavior from the name alone; the description never says what a risk register scan is, what inputs it expects, or what outcome to anticipate. The routing note and two parameter definitions cover mechanism but not purpose. Compared with the richer sibling grc tools, this wrapper lacks the detail needed for confident selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does provide minimal definitions: message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string'. It does not give examples, acceptable input keys, or how the two parameters interact, so this is only minimally adequate.

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 opens with 'Run the grc domain agent action risk_register_scan', which essentially restates the tool name plus the verb 'run' rather than explaining what the action accomplishes. It never states that this scans a risk register, what it detects, or how it differs from sibling grc tools such as grc_risk_score_report or grc_compliance_audit. The only real purpose signal is the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool versus dispatch_domain_agent or any of the many other grc_* actions. The description only describes routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and the call's scope, not the situations that warrant a risk-register scan. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned.

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