get_resource_riskbadge

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains return fields (risk_score, risk_color), the null condition when Aria hasn't computed a badge, and what the badge does not include. This provides substantial behavioral context not evident from annotations alone.

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 and front-loaded with the [READ] tag and main purpose. Every sentence adds value—purpose, context, usage guidance, and parameter explanations—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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual details: what it returns, the meaning of the score, the null edge case, and how to get more detail via list_alerts. It is complete for the agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates with an Args section that explains both parameters: resource_id is 'The resource UUID' and target is 'Aria target name from config; default when omitted.' This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Get the risk badge score for a resource (0–100, higher = more risk of future problems)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_resource_health by noting it returns 'health and efficiency alongside it'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the risk number is all you want' and names the alternative get_resource_health. It also instructs to use list_alerts for contributing alerts when the badge doesn't say what's wrong.

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