grc_risk_score_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but discloses no behavioral traits such as read/write nature, side effects, or output characteristics. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with no wasted words, but it is too brief for a tool that wraps a domain agent action. It would benefit from more context about the action and its expected use.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how the agent action behaves. Given the complexity of GRC domain and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete.

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 description adds basic meaning to parameters beyond the empty schema ('Free-text objective' for message, 'Optional JSON string' for inputs), but lacks depth on expected formats or typical values. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains minimal.

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 the tool runs the 'risk_score_report' action and mentions it accepts a free-text objective, making the purpose clear at a high level. However, it does not explain what a risk score report is, lacking differentiation from sibling tools like grc_risk_register_scan or grc_compliance_audit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for generating a risk report vs. other GRC tools without additional context about the risk_score_report action.

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