list_risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the return shape ('Returns ids you can pass to get_risk') and the filter behavior, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, and the tool is immediately understandable.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering side-effect safety, the description provides the key missing context: how to filter and how to chain results into get_risk. Minor gaps remain around pagination and status values, but defaults and output schema cover part of that.

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 explains the meaningful values for 'type' (RC, OP, SEC) and mentions 'document status', but it does not clarify page/page_size behavior or enumerate possible status values. Partial compensation, not full.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('AIGF risks'), and the available filters. It also distinguishes itself from get_risk by explicitly noting that it returns ids to pass to get_risk, making the tool's role in a workflow clear.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining this tool is for listing/filtering risks and that its ids feed into get_risk. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_controls, but the resource and filter details make the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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