dispatch_ag2_incident

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the multi-agent pipeline, SEMI_AUTO mode, scope requirement, Arbiter policy, and ProofLink receipt. Missing details on failure handling or latency, but still informative.

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?

Two paragraphs are informative but slightly verbose. Could condense agent pipeline into a list, but overall structure is clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return type (multi-agent remediation plan and receipt ID). Covers all necessary aspects for a dispatch tool with good annotations-like transparency.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds no extra parameter context beyond what schema provides, which is already descriptive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool dispatches an IT incident to a specific multi-agent GroupChat for autonomous diagnosis, listing the agent pipeline and output. Distinct from sibling tools like get_incident_details and itsm_create_ticket.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (service crashes, OOMKills, etc.) and mentions SEMI_AUTO mode, giving clear context. Lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use, but examples effectively guide selection.

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