Generate the 4h initial notification for a MAJOR incident (ITS 2025/302 Annex I). Must be submitted within 4h of classification, max 24h after detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authority | No | Competent authority (e.g., BaFin, FMA) | |
| entity_lei | No | ||
| entity_name | No | ||
| incident_id | Yes | ||
| affected_states | No | Comma-separated EU member states | |
| discovery_method | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the regulatory deadline and severity classification, but does not describe the output format, whether the notification is submitted automatically, or any side effects. The verb 'Generate' implies creation of content, but more detail would improve transparency.
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 two sentences long, immediately front-loads the action, and includes the critical deadline. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is relatively sparse. It provides essential regulatory context and timing, but lacks information about parameter usage, expected output, and how it fits with sibling incident workflow tools. It is minimally adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose but not fully complete for invocation decisions.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only authority and affected_states have descriptions). The description itself mentions no parameters and does not compensate for the low coverage. The required incident_id is not explained beyond the schema, and discovery_method's enum values are not clarified. The description adds no value in helping the agent understand how to fill parameters.
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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the 4h initial notification.' It further specifies 'for a MAJOR incident' and references 'ITS 2025/302 Annex I', making it distinct from sibling reporting tools like intermediate_report or final_report. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
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 provides explicit timing constraints ('Must be submitted within 4h of classification, max 24h after detection') and scopes the tool to MAJOR incidents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the regulatory deadline and severity scope give clear context for when to use this tool versus other reporting steps.
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.