itsm_trigger_detection

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

The description discloses that the tool runs five named detectors and does not create tickets, but it provides no details about side effects (e.g., whether results are stored, if it triggers alerts, or if it requires special permissions). With no annotations provided, more transparency on behavioral traits would be beneficial.

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 that is well-structured and front-loaded with key information. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter input, no output schema, and straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete. It specifies the detectors and the no-ticket outcome. However, it could mention the output format or whether the tool blocks until completion, but this is not critical.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. However, schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description appropriately clarifies the tool's behavior without needing parameter elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('all 5 incident detectors') with explicit names. It clearly states the action and the result ('return raw findings without creating tickets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining raw detection results without ticket creation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_list_open_incidents or individual detection tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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