Quantify risk and threat levels for candidate actions or plans by comparing them against active utility weights, helping you choose the safest option.
Compute quantitative risk and threat assessment for candidate actions or plans against active utility weights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| candidate_action | No | ||
| candidate_actions | No | ||
| situation_context | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the computation purpose but says nothing about side effects, permissions, return format, or whether it modifies state. For a tool that likely reads utility weights and returns an assessment, this is a significant omission.
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?
A single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the primary purpose. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification, but as conciseness alone, it's efficient.
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 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual detail. An agent cannot infer what each parameter does, what the expected output format is, or how the risk assessment is structured. This is inadequate for a complex tool.
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 by explaining parameters. It only vaguely references 'candidate actions or plans' but doesn't name any of the 6 parameters (action, project, parameters, candidate_action, candidate_actions, situation_context). No meaning is added beyond what the enum values hint at.
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 states a clear verb ('compute') and resource ('risk and threat assessment') with context ('against active utility weights'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_goal and manage_intentions by focusing on quantitative assessment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with evaluate_situation, which could ambiguously overlap in purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for evaluating candidate actions or plans, it never states exclusions or directs the agent to other tools for different scenarios. With siblings like evaluate_situation and replan, explicit routing is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.