assess_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns a governance decision and confidence score. It does not disclose whether scanning the URL involves network requests, persistence, or side effects, but the core behavioral contract is well stated.

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 wasted words. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though additional detail about the response shape or confidence score semantics would make it stronger.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including an example for 'context'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the URL as the scan target, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('scan a URL'), a clear resource, and a concrete decision output (ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK with confidence score). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling 'scan_url' tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it as a guardrail before an AI agent connects to an external service. It does not mention exclusions or compare against sibling tools like 'scan_url' or 'governance_policy', but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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