kage_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It explains the tool uses Kage's code graph and local git history and lists the aspects assessed. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or outputs, limiting transparency.

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 two sentences long with no extraneous information. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema and 3 parameters. The description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, summary, or report). This omission leaves the agent guessing about the outcome, reducing completeness.

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 67% (targets and changed_files have descriptions in schema). The description does not elaborate on parameter details beyond mentioning assessment of file paths. Given baseline for coverage, score is adequate but could add more 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?

Description clearly states the tool assesses modification risk for files using Kage's code graph and local git history, listing specific aspects like dependents, impact surface, churn, ownership, co-change partners, and test gaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., kage_context, kage_pr_check) by focusing on risk assessment before edits.

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 phrase 'Use before editing hotspot or shared files' provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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