incident_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and partially meets it by explicitly declaring 'Read-only' and detailing what the report includes. This makes the side-effect-free nature clear)Skip, although it does not mention failure modes, permission requirements, or behavior when the incident seq is missing.

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 front-loaded with the object type and uses a single dense sentence to enumerate all relevant report sections, followed by a short 'Read-only' flag. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant schema restatement.

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 one-parameter read-only report without an output schema, the description covers the main operational expectations by listing the report's sections and declaring read-only behavior. It is slightly incomplete on edge cases like a nonexistent incident seq, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, seq, with no description coverage. The description's 'incident `seq`' clarifies that the integer parameter is the incident's sequence identifier, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it still does not explain what a seq is, how to obtain it, or whether there are format constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as an Art. 73 report skeleton for a specific incident sequence and enumerates the concrete contents: dates, statutory deadline, overdue status, evidence entries, oversight, later referring entries, and provider-required fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by its incident-specific subject matter, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'generate' or 'return'.

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 offers no explicit guidance about when to select this tool over sibling report tools such as oversight_report, compliance_report, or incident_reported. There are no alternative conditions, exclusions, or contextual triggers beyond the implicit notion that this is the report for an incident.

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