get_grc_risk

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that details include impact, likelihood, and controls, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data source or response format.

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?

Single sentence, immediately states purpose and key fields. No redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, description lists three return fields (impact, likelihood, controls) which adds context. Lacks details on error handling or missing risks, but sufficient for a simple get operation.

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?

Parameter 'number_or_sysid' is described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds no new meaning to parameter; it only hints at return fields, which is unrelated. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get details of a GRC risk' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_grc_risks (list) and create_grc_risk (create) by implying detail retrieval for a single risk.

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?

Usage is implicit: use when needing details of a specific risk. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like list_grc_risks or get_grc_risk. Minimal guidance.

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