risk_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the scan is read-only, whether it requires network access, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is 'scan for coupling risks,' which is insufficient for an agent to understand safety or performance implications.

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 sentence of 15 words, conveying the essential information without superfluous language. It is front-loaded 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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format (e.g., list of risks, severity levels) or any additional behavior. For a scanning tool, this is a significant gap that hinders effective use.

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 schema describes the parameter 'target' as a repo-relative path. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying what the scan looks for (coupling risks types). With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the extra context earns a 4.

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 purpose: scanning a file or folder for coupling risks like shared state, global events, settings persistence, and reused components. It uses a specific verb 'scan' and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other aspects (e.g., module_dependency_map, find_api_calls).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when to choose risk_scan over similar tools like impact_analysis or module_dependency_map, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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