get_shader_variant_risk

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not state that this is a read-only/analysis operation or how expensive it may be (scanning materials and shader keywords across a project could be heavy). It does reveal the categories of data returned, which is a partial substitute for the absent output schema, but key traits such as scope of the scan and performance cost are undisclosed.

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 front-loaded fragment with no filler; the most important noun (shader variant risk) comes first and the supporting contents follow. It is telegraphic rather than sentence-structured, which is efficient but slightly dense to parse on first read.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only specification, and it partially fills that role by naming the three result categories. It still leaves open what 'risk' means (thresholds, ranking) and whether the analysis is project-wide, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics rest at the baseline and there is nothing for the description to clarify. No parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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 names a specific resource (shader variant risk) and enumerates the concrete contents: multi_compile/shader_feature counts, top shaders by material usage, keyword stats. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_shader_graphs and list_materials_using_shader, though the leading verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when variant risk matters versus simply listing shaders, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the field names in the fragment.

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