show_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool derives metrics from snapshot history and requires a minimum data count, but it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or return format. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output in the first sentence, and provides a critical prerequisite and actionable advice in the second. Every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool computes multiple risk metrics but lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It lists metrics but does not specify if they are returned as an object, array, or single value. For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is partly complete but missing structural 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already described (e.g., 'Start date YYYY-MM-DD'). The description does not add additional meaning or usage tips beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes portfolio risk metrics from snapshot history, listing specific metrics (annualized volatility, Sharpe, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'show_' tools by focusing on risk metrics and requiring snapshot data.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite of at least 10 daily snapshots and suggests an alternative action (running 'firma add snapshot') if the user lacks sufficient data. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools.

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