portfolio.risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool assesses risk and returns a score with warnings, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, though 'assess' and 'returns' strongly suggest non-destructive 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 two sentences, front-loads the key dimensions, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, achieving maximum conciseness for the intended functionality.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It mentions four dimensions and that a risk score with warnings is returned. Minor missing details like score range or warning types would be nice but are not critical for a no-param 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds 'No parameters needed', confirming the schema. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description matches this expectation.

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 explicitly states the tool assesses portfolio risk across four specific dimensions (concentration, diversification, coverage, budget utilization) and returns a risk score with warnings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like portfolio.get or portfolio.optimize.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for risk assessment, it doesn't contrast with siblings such as portfolio.optimize or portfolio.balance, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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