get_resource_riskbadge

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint=true) and explains the return value (0–100 scale) and its predictive meaning. No contradictions with annotations; it adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise: a one-line title, a brief paragraph explaining the risk badge, and clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (score range), and the meaning of the result. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining resource_id as 'The resource UUID' and target as 'Optional Aria Operations target name from config. Uses default if omitted.' This adds semantic meaning absent from 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a risk badge score (0–100), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_resource_health or get_resource_metrics. The verb 'get' and resource 'risk badge score' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that the risk badge predicts performance degradation or availability issues, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_resource_health, which focuses on current health rather than predictive risk.

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