grc_risk_score_report

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

The description adds some behavioral context by noting it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false), but it also does not elaborate on side effects or safety implications.

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 extremely concise, with a single opening sentence and a two-line argument list. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it well-structured for its length.

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 generic nature and the existence of an output schema, the description omits critical context such as what the report returns, how to interpret results, or any example use case. The lack of detail makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description only labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is minimal and still ambiguous about their exact content and relationship.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('the grc domain agent action risk_score_report'), but it does not explain what the action actually does or what a risk score report contains. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by name, but the purpose remains vague.

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 does not mention any conditions, contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the selection entirely to inference.

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