Composite Risk Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying the output format (0-100 score with letter grade) and methodology (weighted evidence factors). However, it could mention potential performance impact or caching behavior for completeness.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output, and methodology. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with key information.

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 read-only nature, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could better explain the relationship between input parameters and the computed score, and whether the score is real-time or cached.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage: 'path' is described, but 'maxFiles' has no description. The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema coverage. It provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 what the tool does: compute a heuristic 0-100 delivery-risk score with letter grade and weighted evidence factors. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'read-only signals', indicating it's a non-destructive analysis tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdlc_release_readiness or sdlc_repo_snapshot. Usage is only implied by the description of read-only signals, but no when-not or alternative mentions are provided.

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