Agent: recompute risk score

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that omitting portfolioId triggers recomputation for all portfolios, which is valuable and goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is necessary and efficiently conveys the function.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lacks any mention of return values or confirmation of completion. It covers the basic purpose but leaves out post-invocation 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 schema describes portfolioId as an FK. The description adds crucial semantics: omitting the parameter means recompute all portfolios. This is not present in the schema and significantly enhances understanding.

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 action ('recomputes the risk profile'), the target resource ('a portfolio or all portfolios'), and the optional scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'generate_report' or 'propose_rebalance' by focusing on a specific computation.

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 implies usage for risk score recalculation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention any preconditions or alternative tools. It is adequate but lacks proactive direction.

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