martin_triage_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the triaging criteria (verification, lifecycle, budget pressure), enhancing transparency beyond the annotations alone.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, and the structured fields cover additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it adds no extra semantic value, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: to prioritize Martin runs needing attention based on verification, lifecycle, and budget pressure. The verb 'prioritize' and resource 'Martin runs' are specific, and the criteria distinguish it from other list/retrieval tools.

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 the tool is used when attention-worthy runs need prioritizing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like martin_list_runs or martin_inspect, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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