classify_risk

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'no threshold input', providing key behavioral context. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden and addresses safety and side-effect concerns adequately, though other traits (e.g., performance) are omitted.

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 succinct sentences with no redundancy. The structure flows logically from purpose to behavioral notes, making it 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return (per-level histogram) and mentions the lack of threshold filtering. It covers core functionality, though parameter details are missing.

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 has 0% coverage for parameters 'report' and 'session'. The description hints that 'report' is a check report but does not explain 'session' or clarify expected formats, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Project a check report's findings into per-severity counts' precisely describes the operation and output. Distinct from siblings by its focus on severity histograms.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (when severity counts are needed) and mentions 'no threshold input' to clarify scope, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'list_risky_files'.

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