list_risky_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only (class A per D99.V) and capped at 500 entries (per D99.U), which are important behavioral constraints. It also discloses the sorting behavior, adding value beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 only two sentences, with the primary function front-loaded in the first sentence and constraints in the second. Every word adds value, no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description does a good job of specifying the return format (list of fields) and sorting, but it leaves the 'session' parameter unexplained and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools. The references to D99.V and D99.U are opaque without external knowledge, creating additional ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While 'report' is implicitly clarified as the 'check report', the 'session' parameter is never explained, leaving its purpose and relationship to the report ambiguous. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool.

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: projecting a check report into a per-file risky-files list with explicit output fields (path, max_severity, finding_count) and sorting order. This specific verb+resource+output format differentiates it from sibling tools like check_repo or classify_risk.

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 context implies the tool is used after a check report exists ('Project a check report'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named.

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