get_risk

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the response includes mitigating controls, related risks, and external references, and that include_sections=false returns a compact record without full text.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first covers the core action and output contents, the second covers the optional flag. No filler, and the most important usage detail is front-loaded.

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?

With a rich output schema present, annotations covering safety/idempotence, and clear explanation of id formats and the include_sections toggle, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by documenting the id parameter's accepted forms (AIR-SEC-010, ri-10, 10, title) and the effect of include_sections. This gives an agent concrete grounding for both 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one AIGF risk by id'), and it clarifies the identifier formats accepted. This differentiates it from siblings like list_risks (which returns many) and get_control (which targets controls rather than risks).

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 'by id' wording makes clear this is for retrieving a single known risk, and the mention of title/ID formats helps an agent know when it has a valid lookup key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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