risk_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the scoring formula (files 0-60, modules 0-40, confidence penalty 0-20) and risk level thresholds, providing significant insight into tool behavior beyond parameter definitions. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, usage examples, and a breakdown of scoring calculation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return values (risk score and risk levels) and mentions mitigation suggestions. It covers the key aspects: purpose, usage, scoring, and risk levels. However, it could elaborate on the structure of mitigation suggestions or provide more detail on when to use different parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by giving concrete usage examples (risk_assessment(name='gh-backend')) and clarifying defaults (from defaults to waterline, to defaults to remote HEAD), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 quantifies code change risk and generates a risk score (0-100) and mitigation suggestions. It includes examples of usage (by repo name or module), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like impact_analysis or test_recommendation.

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 provides examples of when to use the tool (e.g., assessing from waterline to HEAD or by module) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternative tools. Usage is implied but not fully contextualized.

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