assess_change_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the method ('complexity and dependency signals') and the return scale, which compensates for the missing output schema, but it never states whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 tight sentence with the core action and outcome levels front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity veers toward under-specification rather than optimal coverage.

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?

For a one-parameter assessment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the outcome levels but not the thresholds that define them or how composite signals map to each level. An agent could invoke it, but not interpret the result meaningfully.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents filePath fully, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no format, path-resolution, or scoping detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb plus resource ('Assess modification risk') and enumerates the possible outcome levels (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_impact or detect_dead_code, which keeps it at a 4.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over analyze_impact, trace_dependencies, or the other siblings, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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