it_ops_service_desk

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies auth context, but it does not state whether the action is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects or rate limits.

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 short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the action name, but it omits essential purpose information. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 low schema coverage, lack of annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which provides basic meaning but lacks format constraints, defaults, or examples. This is adequate but not rich.

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 it runs the it_ops domain agent action 'service_desk' but fails to specify what the action actually does (e.g., create a ticket, query status). The purpose is vague, and among sibling it_ops tools with clearer names like it_ops_incident_response, this one lacks differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative it_ops tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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