anon_get_risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: a membership/auth requirement, the status filter (only active and ignored surfaces), and the ordering rules (critical→warning→info, then most-recent detection).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the following sentences are compact and informative. The raw endpoint line (GET /api/projects/{id}/risks) is somewhat redundant given the surrounding prose, but it is a minor addition rather than filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the returned status set, sort order, and auth requirement. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but that gap is limited for a zero-arg list 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?

Zero parameters means the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explaining that the project is derived from the API key and no projectId should be passed, which meaningfully clarifies the absence of parameters rather than leaving it ambiguous.

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 the specific verb+resource (列出风险预警 / list risk warnings) and adds filter and sort semantics. It is distinguishable from the risk mutation siblings (evaluate/ignore/restore) by operation, but it never names an alternative, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (需项目成员身份) and states what is returned (only active/ignored), which implies how to use it, but it never says when to choose this over anon_post_risks_evaluate or the ignore/restore tools. Usage is implied, not guided.

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