archy_high_risk_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the metric and output breakdown but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects. The behavior is inferred but not fully disclosed.

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 concise, structured logically: purpose, metric explanation, usage guidance, and output details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema and sibling context, the description fails to explain the two parameters, which is a critical gap. Without parameter descriptions, the tool cannot be correctly invoked. The output breakdown is good, but the overall completeness is low due to missing parameter 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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'path' or 'top_n'. 'path' is not defined (e.g., file path or module path), and 'top_n' lacks context on default behavior. The description provides no added meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns top-N internal modules ranked by edit-risk, explains the composite metric (geometric mean of three factors), and what a high score signifies. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on risk ranking.

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?

Explicitly advises calling before non-trivial edits to decide on scoping down, snapshots, or human review. Though it doesn't list when to avoid or name specific sibling alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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