score_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Pure function' and gives the risk mapping, which is useful. However, it lacks details on error handling, input validation, or how numbers (files_count, loc_changed) are used despite mentioning only boolean signals. The description adds some transparency but is 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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each adding distinct information (purpose, property, mapping). No wasted words, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the risk score is computed from the parameters, leaving ambiguity (e.g., are boolean signals summed? How are numbers handled?). The agent lacks information to correctly invoke the tool without guessing.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'from boolean signals', but the schema includes both boolean and number parameters. It does not explain how each parameter contributes to the risk score or how the count is computed from mixed types. The mapping given is vague regarding the role of numeric parameters, offering minimal semantic help.

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 verb 'Compute' and the output 'risk level (Low/Medium/High)' from 'boolean signals'. It includes the mapping from score range to level, making the purpose very specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like classify_work_type, the unique mapping and mention of boolean signals set it apart sufficiently.

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 says 'Pure function', implying it has no side effects and can be called freely. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., classify_work_type, score_rubric) or any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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