knowbe4_reporting_risk_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output components (risk score, trend, highest-risk groups) which gives a reasonable preview. However, it doesn't clarify whether the 'highest-risk groups' output returns full group details requiring separate lookups, or how the trend is computed/time-bounded. For a read-only reporting tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, enumerates the three output components, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

As a no-input reporting tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid picture of what's returned (risk score, trend, highest-risk groups). It's reasonably complete for an overview tool, though it could add detail on sort order of groups or the time window for the trend, which would help an agent set expectations for downstream processing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there's no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description adequately sets expectations that no inputs are needed and that the tool returns account-level overview data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('account risk posture') and enumerates the specific outputs: current risk score, recent risk score trend, and highest-risk groups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account risk score history and per-group risk score history, which focus on different scopes.

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 implies this is for a high-level account-wide risk overview, which is supported by the mention of 'account risk posture' and 'highest-risk groups'. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to choose this over sibling tools like knowbe4_account_risk_score_history or knowbe4_groups_risk_score_history, which offer related but different scopes.

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