assess_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's comprehensive nature and returns a 'go/no-go recommendation', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses deeper operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, uses two efficient sentences total with zero wasted words, and clearly communicates the tool's value proposition and recommendation status without redundancy.

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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's integrative nature, when to use it, and the output type ('go/no-go recommendation'), though it could elaborate more on behavioral risks or error handling.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it contextualizes the inputs as part of a 'comprehensive risk assessment' for DeFi safety checks, which slightly enhances understanding.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('combining contract scanning, transaction simulation, and token checks') and resources ('DeFi interaction'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the 'recommended all-in-one safety check' that integrates their functions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('before any DeFi interaction') and implies alternatives by naming sibling tools (check_token, scan_contract, simulate_transaction) as components it combines, making it the comprehensive choice over piecemeal approaches.

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