project_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or what the output format is. The phrase 'memory-driven risk management' hints at behavior but fails to disclose key traits needed for safe and correct invocation.

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, reasonably concise sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parenthetical list could be more specific. Overall, it is well-structured and economically written, though not exceptionally detailed.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It fails to do so—it never states what the 'score' looks like, how it is returned, or what compare_limit controls. For a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'memories' which likely maps to memory_ids, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter, and compare_limit is completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Score project risk from memories and intention state.' It lists example inputs (known problem traces, conflicts, overdue intentions, clashing schedules), which gives a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like list_conflicts or conflict_advice, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 assessment based on memory and intention data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_conflicts or conflict_advice. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is only implied.

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