risk_assess

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it mentions a pre-filter that returns low/skipped for safe actions, then applies signal detection across five risk categories, and lists the return fields (risk_level, boundary_crossed, reversibility, risk_reasons). This provides a clear picture of the tool's internal processing.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, process, usage trigger, and output/handoff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant text.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, process, return fields, and the next step to action_guard. It does not explicitly connect parameters like package_info or diff to the detection logic, but the schema covers those details.

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 baseline is 3. The description references 'proposed action' and target categories, but does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., how diff or package_info are used).

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 'Assess the risk of a proposed action before executing it' with a specific verb and resource. It goes on to list the detection categories and the explicit trigger set, distinguishing it from sibling tools like action_guard.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE any action in the trigger set: publish, push, force-push, git tag, deploy...' and instructs the next step: 'Pass the result to action_guard to get a policy decision.' This clearly positions the tool relative to alternatives.

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