risk_panel

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'aggregate risk signals' and 'returns weighted score', but does not explain if it modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence that covers the main purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though there is room to add structure (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given no output schema, the description vaguely mentions 'returns weighted score' but lacks detail on format or meaning. With only one optional parameter, it is somewhat complete but leaves gaps in return value semantics.

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?

The only parameter 'urlSubstring' has no documentation in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain its purpose or effect, leaving the agent to guess.

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 it aggregates risk signals from cached scripts and returns a weighted score. It lists specific signal types (crypto, exfil, etc.), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_target' or 'detect_crypto'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use case is implied (for overall risk assessment), but alternatives are not mentioned.

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