escalate_blocker

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits, but it only says 'Prepare an evidence-backed escalation' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, state changes, or process details. It does not explain what 'evidence-backed' entails or whether the tool only generates output or takes action. The description is vague about the tool's actual behavior beyond the name.

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 with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying the core action and context. However, it may be too brief given the ambiguity, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values may be covered), the description lacks essential context about when to use the tool, what evidence is needed, and what 'escalation' entails. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete for proper selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description fails to clarify the parameters. The sole required parameter is 'principalId', which is not explained, and 'workflowId' is only vaguely implied by 'workflow'. The description adds no meaning to the schema, so the agent cannot infer what values to provide or what they represent.

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 states a clear action ('Prepare an evidence-backed escalation') and a specific target ('workflow root blocker'), which is more specific than a generic verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like detect_blockers or simulate_resolution, even though escalation is distinct. This fits 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when escalation is appropriate, or reference any sibling tools. The context signals show 12 siblings, but none are mentioned, so the agent gets no direction on selection.

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