get_compliance_risk_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool's output content (severity breakdown, top risks, regulatory impact) but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. No redundancy or extraneous information. Front-loaded and 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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a reasonable expectation of the returned content. It mentions three key aspects. However, it could be more precise (e.g., format, aggregation level) but is adequate for a zero-parameter summary 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explicitly listing the summary components (severity breakdown, top risks, regulatory impact), giving meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 specifies 'cross-engine risk summary' with components like severity breakdown, top risks, and regulatory impact. It implies a aggregated view, differentiating from siblings like get_violations (individual violations) and list_controls (controls). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from cluster_status which might also be a summary.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings exist but no comparative guidance.

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