it_ops_incident_response

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about JWT, tenant, and company scoping and that this invokes a domain-agent action, but it does not describe what side effects the incident response may trigger. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded: purpose first, then routing/scope context, then a clean Args block with one line per parameter. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

An agent cannot tell what makes `incident_response` distinct from the many other it_ops domain tools, what kind of input produces a successful run, or what real-world side effects to expect. The output schema covers return values, but the absence of purpose elaboration and usage context makes this incomplete, especially for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does define `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it gives no detail about expected JSON structure, example values, or how the objective will be interpreted, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific action, `incident_response`, and states that the tool runs that domain-agent action, so it is clear what the tool does mechanically. It does not explain what incident response actually accomplishes, but the action name is self-descriptive. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is routing context rather than usage guidance. No sibling tools, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned.

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