martin_triage_runs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that this surfaces attention-worthy runs by default and that healthy runs are excluded unless includeHealthy is true, plus the workflow hint to inspect before retrying.

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?

Four short sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and all subsequent sentences earning their place: trigger conditions, an exclusion, and a next-step directive. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With 8 optional params, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description supplies the missing selection context: when to call it, when not to, and what to do next. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific action, resource, and filtering criterion: 'Read-only prioritization of saved Martin runs that need attention.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like martin_list_runs or martin_status, which list or report status without prioritization. The 'need attention' scope is precise.

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?

It names concrete triggering scenarios: prior attempt failed, user asks what to fix next, or resuming an interrupted session. It also gives an explicit non-use case: brand-new objective with no relevant run history, and ends with the correct next action, inspect the selected run or dossier before retrying.

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