it_ops_qa

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

The description adds a small amount of context about routing ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which gives some idea of how the action is executed. However, it does not disclose the actual behavior—side effects, return format, potential errors, or the nature of the 'qa' action. The annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, but the description does not elaborate on those.

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 very short and contains no filler. The two sentences are directly relevant to the tool's function. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substance for brevity, though it does not waste words.

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?

The description is severely incomplete. It does not mention what the 'qa' action does, what the output looks like, what errors may occur, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is indicated in the context signals but not included or summarized in the description. An agent would have no idea what to expect from calling this 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?

The description provides minimal semantic labels for the parameters: 'message' is 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is slightly more than the raw schema (which has no descriptions), but it does not explain the expected content, format, or relationship between the two parameters. No examples or constraints are given.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'it_ops domain agent action `qa`', but the resource itself is undefined—what does 'qa' actually do? It does not distinguish this from the many sibling it_ops tools like it_ops_live_jira or it_ops_live_slack. The purpose remains vague and tautological.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only repeats the dispatch mechanism without offering any decision-making information.

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