archy_high_risk_modules

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the composite metric, its interpretation (expensive and likely to need iteration), and that output includes component breakdown. No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence adds value: first defines output and metric, second interprets score, third gives use case, fourth describes output detail. No redundancy despite length.

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 description fully explains the tool's purpose, metric components, use case, and output structure. With an output schema present, the description sufficiently prepares an agent to decide and use the 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter (what it should point to) or 'top_n' beyond the implied 'top-N'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema property titles.

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 it returns top-N internal modules ranked by edit-risk with a specific composite metric. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on risk ranking before edits, and the verb 'return' with 'top-N internal modules' is specific and clear.

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 says to call before a non-trivial edit to decide scoping, snapshots, or human review. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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