explain_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: references current planetary positions, constructs a causally coherent cosmic narrative, and maintains a professionally grave tone. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but given the nature (analysis), this is reasonable. A 4 reflects good disclosure for an analysis tool.

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 succinct with three sentences and an Args section. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Every part contributes value: purpose, planetary references, tone, and parameter doc. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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's low complexity (1 required param, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, and behavioral traits. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The description is fully complete for the context.

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 description includes a docstring for the 'description' parameter: 'A description of the incident, outage, or anomaly.' This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides type and title. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description effectively compensates by clarifying parameter usage.

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's action: 'Receive an incident or outage description and return a rigorous astrological root-cause analysis.' It specifies the verb (receive/return), resource (incident/outage description), and output (astrological analysis). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cosmic_risk_score or get_daily_briefing, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies use for incident descriptions but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to the 8 sibling tools. This lack of usage context reduces its helpfulness for tool selection.

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