triage_production_failureClassifies one sanitized n8n, MCP, webhook, agent-tool-routing, retry, or general production incident and returns concrete next checks without echoing the submitted incident.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| incident | Yes | A sanitized symptom summary. Remove credentials, tokens, private keys, regulated data, and unrelated customer data. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating it returns concrete next checks without echoing the incident, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action (classifies and returns checks). While concise, it could be split for readability, but no words are wasted.
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 the simple input schema (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it accepts, and what it returns (concrete next checks). It omits details like error handling but is complete for a straightforward classification tool.
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 100% for the single 'incident' parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool classifies production incidents and returns next checks, listing specific incident types (n8n, MCP, webhook, etc.) and explicitly noting it does not echo the submitted incident. The name and title align well, and sibling tools (describe_rescue_offer, get_case_intake_requirements) are clearly different.
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 the tool is for triaging production failures but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it (e.g., for non-production issues). It provides no alternative guidance, which is a gap for a tool with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one describes the service offer, one provides intake requirements, and one triages incidents. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (describe_rescue_offer, get_case_intake_requirements, triage_production_failure).
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of describing the rescue service, providing intake requirements, and triaging failures.
The toolset covers key aspects: describing the offer, intake requirements, and triage. Missing a submit or status tool, but actions are handled via external URLs.