list_grc_risks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as result scope, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The 'List' verb merely restates the read-only nature without adding value beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 a single short sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the key verb and includes the GRC expansion, with no filler or redundant details.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with three optional filters and no output schema, the description, combined with the annotated schema, provides sufficient context for the agent to invoke the tool. However, it could mention the overall scope (e.g., 'all risk entries') or note that filters restrict the result set, but this is implied by the schema. It is adequate but not exceptionally complete.

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%, with each of the three parameters (limit, state, category) clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information but does not need to, given the high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource identifier 'GRC risk entries' and expands the GRC acronym. It distinguishes from siblings like get_grc_risk (single record) and create_grc_risk (write operation) because it names a listing operation. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_grc_risk or list_grc_controls. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the resource name. There are no exclusions or context about when filtering is beneficial.

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