Draw the risk level/status matrix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (table + Mermaid quadrant chart), the precedence of engagement data over arguments, and the top-left emphasis behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, what happens when both sources are empty, or any prerequisites like an active engagement, leaving notable gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core function first, then data source, then purpose. It is bilingual, which doubles length, but both language versions earn their place. No redundant filler; the visual-emphasis sentence adds useful intent. Slightly long due to translation, but not bloated.

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?

The description covers the return value (table + Mermaid chart), the data source precedence, and the tool's visual goal. It lacks an explicit statement about the empty-input edge case (no engagement risks and no risks argument) and does not mention dependency on a current engagement context. Given the simple schema and absence of an output schema, this is a minor but real gap.

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 input schema already documents both 'lang' and 'risks' thoroughly. The description reinforces the fallback role of the risks parameter ('無ければ引数から描く') but adds no meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already convey. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('返す/Show'), a precise resource ('リスク/risks'), and the exact output format ('level × status matrix table and Mermaid quadrant chart'). It also clarifies the input source ('engagement or arguments') and the intended visual emphasis (top-left critical/untouched). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like risk_matrix and diagram_stakeholder_matrix.

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 explains the data-source selection rule: use engagement-registered risks if available, otherwise fall back to the risks argument. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like risk_matrix, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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