get_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns full risk details (name, description, classification, custom fields) and that relations can be embedded, which is real added context, but it says nothing about auth, error behavior for a missing/invalid riskId, or deleted-risk handling.

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 first two sentences restate the same idea ('Get a specific risk' / 'Retrieve a specific risk using its unique identifier'), so one of them is pure redundancy. The remaining sentences about returned fields and relations are useful and reasonably front-loaded, but the opening wastes space.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what identifies the risk, what comes back, and how to expand related data. Only minor gaps remain, such as not clarifying the `with` vs 'relations' naming or error behavior.

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?

The schema already documents the nested riskId ('The risk identifier.') and the `with` parameter in detail, including its enum values and comma-separated syntax. The description's only parameter-level contribution is the phrase 'relations parameter', which does not match the schema's actual name `with` and could cause a naming mismatch for the agent.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific risk', 'Retrieve a specific risk using its unique identifier'), making the single-item fetch unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with get_risk_collection, though 'specific' plus the required riskId implies the distinction well enough.

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 gives one concrete usage hint — use the relations parameter to pull associated data in a single request — which is genuinely useful guidance. But there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives such as get_risk_collection or the dedicated get_risk_tags/get_risk_test_cases endpoints for related data.

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