get_doc_pr_risk_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the fused signals and output structure clearly, and notes it mirrors another tool. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or deterministic behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives input context, third provides a comparison reference. All sentences are dense and necessary, no 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?

The description explains inputs and outputs adequately for a tool with no output schema. It mentions the final outputs (risk_score, risk_level, blockers, recommendation). Lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but is generally complete for use.

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 covers only 50% of parameters (repo has no description, changed_sections has a detailed description). The description adds value by specifying that changed_sections is caller-supplied from a git diff or paired with get_recent_changes, clarifying its source beyond the schema.

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 risk profile using multiple signals (volume, blast_radius, etc.) and outputs risk_score, risk_level, top-5 blockers, and recommended_action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_section_blast_radius and get_recent_changes.

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 explains that the caller must provide changed_sections, which can come from a git diff or by pairing with get_recent_changes. It mentions mirroring jcm's get_pr_risk_profile but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or list when not to use.

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