codex_risk_radar

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (analyze diff, return risk score/categories/recommendation), which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly clarify side effects or limitations, but the description is sufficiently transparent for an analysis tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema. The description lists the return values (risk score, affected categories, recommendation) but does not specify types or structure. Given the complexity, it is adequate but leaves some detail gaps.

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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool's description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so no bonus points.

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 analyzes a git diff to identify risk zones and recommend collaboration depth, and specifies that it returns risk score, affected categories, and which sibling tool to use. This distinguishes it from siblings by being the risk analysis tool that guides towards others.

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 when analyzing a git diff, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like codex_debug or codex_research. It mentions recommending siblings but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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