telivy_list_risk_assessments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states the tool lists risk assessments and optionally filters by scan status. It does not mention that the list is read-only (likely safe), nor whether it returns large datasets, handles pagination limits, or if there are any side effects. For a list tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and optional filtering. It is concise and free of fluff, earning a 4 for efficiency while retaining essential 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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain default behaviors (e.g., limit of 100, sort order) or how to use filters effectively, nor does it mention the absence of sorting/filtering combinations. An agent would need to rely on the schema, but the description adds little context.

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%, as every parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that results are 'deep-scan' and filterable by scan status. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists risk assessments and specifies they are deep-scan (agent-based) fleet security assessments. It distinguishes from siblings like telivy_list_external_scans by the 'deep-scan' qualifier, but does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing risk assessments, but does not mention when to use telivy_get_risk_assessment or other list tools. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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