check_permission_risks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool 'surfaces data; it does NOT pick' and describing the types of holders it classifies (EOA, Gnosis Safe multisig, TimelockController). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 informative but verbose, including an issue reference ('Issue #599') and repeated emphasis on what the tool does not do. While well-structured with clear sections, it could be more concise without losing core information.

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 security focus, the description covers purpose, scope, behavioral constraints, and usage guidelines adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format or output structure, which would be helpful for an agent to process results. No output schema to compensate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what is in the schema (address pattern, chain enum). The agent must rely solely on the schema definitions, which are minimal. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameters.

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 verb 'Enumerate privileged roles' and specifies the resource (contract roles like Ownable.owner, AccessControl hints) and classification of holders. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_contract_security' by focusing specifically on governance posture and explicitly stating what it does not measure (token upside, price direction).

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states the tool is for due diligence, not for picking tokens, and instructs the agent to refuse speculative-pick prompts. It also clarifies the interpretation of results ('safety floor, NOT an upside signal').

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