get_risk_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are project-scoped and that relations can be requested, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or permission requirements beyond what annotations and schema supply.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the capability summary is easy to scan. 'Get all risks' and 'Retrieve all risks from a project' are redundant restatements of the same idea, which is the only wasted 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 list tool with a richly documented nested schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It omits anything about the shape of the returned collection or pagination behavior, and with no output schema that information is unavailable elsewhere, leaving a modest gap.

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 single top-level parameter (the nested query object) has no schema description, though its nested properties are thoroughly documented with descriptions, enums, and bounds. The description maps loosely onto four capability groups (filters, sorting, pagination, relations) but adds no syntax or default-value detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all risks... Retrieve all risks from a project'), so the agent knows this returns a risk collection rather than a single risk. It does not name or contrast with the sibling get_risk or the other *_collection tools, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 second and third sentences imply usage ('Apply custom filters, sorting, and pagination to find the risks you need') but give no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and never point to an alternative such as get_risk for a single record or get_risk_test_cases for related test cases. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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