get_risk

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses the payload contents (mitigation and contingency plans, probability, impact, level, occurrence cost, manager) and flags that v2 REST is the authoritative source. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or behavior for missing/invalid risk IDs.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the prerequisite instruction placed after it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets. What's left out — error behavior for a bad riskId — is minor for a simple two-parameter read.

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 100% with both parameters documented ('The risk ID', 'The project ID containing the risk'), so the schema already carries semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond implying riskId comes from get_project_risks, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail of a single risk') and scopes it to the v2 REST source of truth, which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling get_project_risks. An agent can tell immediately whether this is the single-record fetch it needs.

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 routes the agent: 'Use get_project_risks first to discover risk IDs,' naming the sibling and the prerequisite for a required parameter. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g., bulk retrieval), but the single-vs-list split is clear.

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