get_session_risk

Analyze real-time risk trajectory for a session to detect safety spikes, monitor behavioral trends, and identify self-harm or criminal intent patterns.

Instructions

Return the current risk trajectory for a session.

Parameters

session_id: The session identifier to query.

Returns

dict {"spike_detected": bool, "trend": str, "window_scores": list, "category_counts": dict, "message_count": int}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Tool Definition Quality

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It compensates partially by detailing the return structure (spike_detected, trend, window_scores, etc.), which helps agents understand the data shape. However, it omits operational details like whether this is read-only, rate limits, or caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Uses a standard docstring format (Parameters/Returns) that efficiently organizes information. The first sentence states purpose immediately, and every subsequent line adds specific technical detail about inputs or outputs without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple single-parameter input and documented return structure (dict with specific fields), the description is functionally complete. The return value documentation suffices given the explicit output schema structure provided in the description text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Parameters section explicitly defines session_id as 'The session identifier to query,' which clarifies the required input. It could be improved with format expectations, but adequately covers the single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence 'Return the current risk trajectory for a session' clearly identifies the action (Return) and resource (risk trajectory). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings check_message_safety (message-level) and list_recent_escalations (historical list) by focusing on session-level trajectory, though explicit differentiation is absent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus check_message_safety (which likely evaluates individual messages) or list_recent_escalations. No prerequisites, error conditions, or filtering guidance is mentioned.

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

Install Server

humane-proxy