Log an incident report event with reporter, recipient, and timestamp, and close the incident for subsequent reports.
Record that incident seq was reported (Art. 73, Art. 26(5)): to whom and when. A later entry that names
the incident; incident_report and oversight_report treat it as closed from then on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| actor | Yes | ||
| reported_to | Yes | ||
| reported_ts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.39.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral consequence — later incident_report/oversight_report entries treat the incident as closed — but it does not explain idempotency, permissions, or whether a report can be recorded more than once.
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 short and front-loads the core action with the legal references. The second sentence is a fragment but adds meaningful lifecycle context without 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 write-like lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified. It omits prerequisites (does seq need to exist?), the meaning of actor/note, and any return or error behavior, despite being surrounded by many similar lifecycle tools.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies seq and maps 'to whom and when' to reported_to/reported_ts, but it does not clarify required actor or optional note, leaving callers to guess their meaning.
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 specific action — record that an incident was reported — and references the exact seq plus legal articles, so a caller knows what the tool accomplishes. It references incident_report and oversight_report as related lifecycle tools, which helps differentiate it from them, though the second sentence is somewhat garbled.
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?
It implies this tool is for the initial reporting event and that later reports will treat the incident as closed, giving lifecycle context. It never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as record_incident or incident_report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.