probo_risks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required OAuth scope ('integrations:probo:read'), indicating a read permission, and adds context about governance and a ProofLink receipt. However, it could be more explicit about the read-only nature and return format, but the 'List' verb and 'read' scope imply safety.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by important context (scope, policy, receipt). Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (severity level and status) and provides context on permissions and a receipt. It might have explained the Probo domain or the ProofLink receipt, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Baseline is 4, and the description does not attempt to describe any parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 ('List all') on a specific resource ('Probo compliance risks') and identifies the key returned fields ('severity level and status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like probo_controls or probo_summary by focusing on compliance risks.

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 provides clear context (list all risks) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The 'List all' phrasing implies a full retrieval, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over related tools like probo_controls or probo_summary. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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