assess_risks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. '快速' hints at latency and the mention of human decision-making hints at the consumer, but nothing is said about permissions, what the assessment contains, or whether anything is persisted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose leads. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits nearly all supplementary detail.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only guidance available, yet it omits return shape, risk dimensions assessed, and parameter behavior. For a tool meant to feed top-level decisions, this is too thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only echoes the two field concepts (想法/设计) without explaining that 'design' is optional or how a design refines the assessment, leaving the parameter relationship unexplained.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource pair (风险评估 on 想法/设计), so an agent knows it produces a risk assessment rather than a design listing or a question probe. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like analyze_upper_design or probe_idea_question.

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 clause '供人做顶层决策' implies the decision context in which the tool is useful, giving implicit usage guidance. It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks, so guidance remains inferential.

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