assess_action

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it does not record or gate, returns risk level, reversibility, dangerous capabilities, and recommendation. This is comprehensive for an assessment tool.

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, with two clear sentences for purpose and usage, followed by a parameter description. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description already lists the return fields (risk, reversible, dangerous capabilities, recommendation). The description is complete for understanding the tool's input, output, and behavior.

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 only parameter 'action' is described as 'the command/SQL/tool call to assess (required)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple string type. This clarifies what kind of input is expected.

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 'Classify' and the resource 'blast radius of an action'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'guard_action' by stating 'WITHOUT recording or gating it', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to reason about risk; use guard_action when you actually intend to run it.' This clearly advises when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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