get_doc_pr_risk_profile

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, detailing the fused signals (volume, blast_radius, etc.) and the exact output (risk_score, risk_level, top-5 blockers, recommended_action). No contradiction.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, input source, and relation to another tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the output structure. It also explains input derivation and distinguishes from many sibling tools, providing a complete picture for an agent.

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 description adds critical guidance for the changed_sections parameter, explaining it comes from a git diff or get_recent_changes. With 50% schema coverage, this compensates well, though repo lacks additional semantic context.

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 tool computes a 'Composite doc-PR risk profile' by fusing specific signals. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it mirrors 'jcm's get_pr_risk_profile' and requires a caller-supplied change list.

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 tells the agent to compute the change list via git diff or use with get_recent_changes. It provides clear context for input preparation but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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