get_grc_risk_dashboard

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It does so by stating that results include counts by state and highest-scored open risks, though it leaves some ambiguity about whether counts cover all risks or only open risks.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the tool's summary nature and the contents returned.

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 simple dashboard tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the high-level return content. It could be slightly more complete about whether all risk states are counted or only open risks, and how many results the `top` parameter controls.

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 single `top` parameter is fully documented in the schema with a default and maximum, giving a baseline of 3. The description implies a top-N list of open risks but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('Risk posture') and names the two main outputs: risk counts by state and highest-scored open risks. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_risks or the other GRC dashboards.

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 use case is implied by 'Summarize the Risk posture,' suggesting a high-level dashboard overview rather than detailed record access. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives like list_risks or get_risk.

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