grc_risk_register_scan

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some context, but it fails to disclose whether the action is read-only or modifies data, what side effects occur, or what the return value contains. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, it includes a technical routing detail that may not be immediately useful for the agent. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more concise by omitting the dispatcher routing and focusing on functional behavior.

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 complexity (domain agent action), missing annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scanning the risk register' entails, what triggers it, or what the output contains (despite an output schema existing). The agent lacks context to understand the tool's full 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides one-line descriptions for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. While this adds minimal meaning, it does not explain valid formats, constraints, or examples. The agent cannot reliably construct valid input without additional knowledge.

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 runs the 'risk_register_scan' domain agent action. The verb 'run' and specific resource name make the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling GRC tools like 'grc_risk_score_report' or 'grc_audit_trail_export', which could confuse an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions and does not mention any prerequisites or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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