dr_assess_risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, what it returns, or whether authentication via api_key is required. The single sentence only names the outcome, not the behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and conveys the essential action and target in an efficient manner.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what the assessment produces, whether it requires special permissions, and whether it has side effects. None of this is covered. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in correctly invoking and interpreting this tool.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, but it does align with the required parameters by mentioning 'infrastructure components'. This is a baseline score since the schema handles the semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Assess') and a clear resource ('disaster recovery risks for infrastructure components'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like dr_generate_plan and dr_create_runbooks by focusing on assessment rather than plan generation or runbook creation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as dr_generate_plan or dr_create_runbooks. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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