it_ops_incident_response

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. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose what the action does, whether it is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. For a tool that likely triggers an incident response process, this is insufficient.

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 concise, with two sentences plus parameter descriptions. It efficiently states the action and the routing context. However, the lack of purpose clarity reduces its overall effectiveness.

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 tool's complexity (it invokes an incident response action) and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain what the action accomplishes. The agent cannot infer the tool's real-world effect, making it incomplete for proper selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema (which has only titles and defaults), but the explanations are minimal and do not specify format or constraints.

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 states the tool 'runs the it_ops domain agent action incident_response' but does not explain what that action actually does. The verb 'run' is generic, and there is no information about the purpose or outcome of incident response. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like it_ops_service_desk or it_ops_analysis_review.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to other it_ops tools. It only describes the routing mechanism, not usage context.

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