preflight_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output (risk score and go/no-go recommendation) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, as it covers core behavior but misses operational context.

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 front-loaded and efficient, using two sentences to convey purpose, checks, and output without wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or performance. With no output schema, it could benefit from more on return values, but it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sensor' as hostname, 'profile' for historical lookup). The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as explaining how these parameters influence the risk assessment. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('Assess', 'checking') and resources ('sensor', 'RAMP test'), listing concrete checks (existing drops, memory pressure, CPU baseline, buffer residue). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'diagnose_drops' or 'sensor_status' by focusing on pre-flight risk assessment for testing readiness rather than diagnosis or status reporting.

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 context ('ready for a RAMP test'), suggesting it should be used before starting a test, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'sensor_status' or 'diagnose_drops'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving guidance incomplete.

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