get_resource_riskbadge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return fields risk_score and risk_color, the null behavior when Aria has not computed a badge, and the limitation that the badge does not explain what is wrong. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and using short, information-dense sentences. It covers purpose, return values, usage guidance, null cases, and alternatives without redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the score means, what fields are returned, when the value is null, and which sibling tool to use for more detail. The annotations and schema handle the remaining context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents resource_id as 'The resource UUID' and target as the Aria target name. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the risk badge score for a resource', which clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_resource_health by noting it returns only the risk number, not health and efficiency.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when the risk number is all you want.' It also names the alternative get_resource_health and provides a use-case boundary, and directs users to list_alerts when they need contributing alerts, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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