Build Risk Register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does imply the output is a generated draft ('inicial', 'mitigación sugerida') rather than a persisted record, which is modest value, but it says nothing about permissions, whether anything is stored, or side effects. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that gap is excusable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than concise, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The output schema handles return-value documentation, but for a 6-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool the description leaves an agent unable to populate any input meaningfully. It should at minimum explain what the boolean flags and codebase_type drive.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (codebase_type, external_risks, unclear_requirements, production_criticality, data_migration_required, has_third_party_integrations). The terms it does list (probabilidad, impacto, mitigación) are outputs, not inputs, so it adds no input semantics at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Construye un registro inicial de riesgos') and names the artifacts it produces (probabilidad, impacto, mitigación sugerida). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling generation tools by resource, though it never explicitly positions itself against them.

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 indication of when to invoke this versus siblings like analyze_scope_gaps or wbs_breakdown, nor any prerequisite (e.g., whether scope must be analyzed first). The word 'inicial' hints at an early-phase tool but the description never states the trigger condition.

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