analyze_vault_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get risk analysis with warnings' without indicating side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output entails. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., breaking into use case and behavior). Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-sentence description, the tool fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what 'risk analysis' entails, what 'warnings' mean, or how the network parameter affects results. The description is too minimal for the complexity implied by the tool name.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (cdpId and network are well-documented). It mentions 'one vault', which reinforces the role of cdpId, but adds no extra semantic depth.

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 the tool's purpose: to get risk analysis for one vault, with an additional qualifier 'with warnings'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vault_summary or get_user_vaults, which serve different purposes (summary vs. list).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vault_summary, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats. There is no explicit when/when-not information.

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