trw_entity_risk_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'NEVER raises for sidecar failures.' However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The disclosure is incomplete for a tool without 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?

The description is concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, providing usage context, explaining a parameter behavior, and giving a safety guarantee. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not fully explain all parameters (only top_n is partially covered). It also does not clarify what 'structural risk rows' entail. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.

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 add meaning. It only explains the top_n parameter (top_n=0 returns all matching rows). The other three parameters (cache_dir, repo_root, changed_only) are not described. This partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'entity-level structural risk rows for the current SHA'. It also provides a use case: when a reviewer needs symbol/function/class/endpoint blast-radius triage from a persisted sidecar. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trw_codebase_risk_report.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('when a reviewer needs ... triage') and mentions it is tier-gated. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand the intended scenario.

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