score_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the computation (CVSS + context) and the return format, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. Since it is a calculation tool, the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a minor gap, but not a critical 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then clearly organizes Args and Returns in separate sections. Every sentence contributes useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema, so return values are additionally specified there. The description itself provides enough context for a relatively simple calculation tool: it names inputs, a key influence (context), and the output components. It does not address edge cases or error scenarios, but for this complexity level, the coverage is adequate.

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. It does so effectively with an 'Args' section explaining both parameters: 'findings' as a list from any Tengu tool, and 'context' with examples and explanation of its effect on risk multipliers. This adds meaningful semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific action: 'Calculate a comprehensive risk score based on CVSS scores and engagement context.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools, which are primarily scanning or attack tools. The reference to 'findings from any Tengu tool' also establishes its role as an aggregation/analysis layer.

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 that the tool is used after collecting findings from other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as correlate_findings. It provides context about the input ('findings from any Tengu tool') but lacks clear guidance on selection conditions or exclusions.

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