ops_state_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies read-only access but does not confirm idempotency, safety guarantees, rate limits, or whether this queries a cache versus live systems. No information on return format or pagination behavior is provided despite the presence of a 'limit' parameter.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded with the primary verb and efficiently lists the covered entity types. No wasted words, though given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, additional sentences explaining parameters or behavior would have been valuable rather than verbose.

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 tool with three parameters (including one with six enum values), zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the 'summary' collection, explain valid 'status' values, or describe the return structure, leaving the agent to guess at critical usage details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the entity types corresponding to the 'collection' enum values (though it misses 'summary'). However, it provides no semantics for the 'status' parameter (valid values, format) or 'limit' parameter (default behavior, pagination semantics), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the resource types (incidents, digests, broadcasts, followups, playbook runs), which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like ops_incident_create or ops_broadcast_message. However, it omits the 'summary' collection type and 'local operations state' is slightly vague without specifying if this is cached or real-time data.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'Inspect' implies this is for reading state versus the creating/updating siblings, there is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this over specific getters, or filtering capabilities.

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