it_ops_triage_sdlc_intake

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds some useful execution context by explaining that the call routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not describe what side effects occur or what makes the operation destructive.

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 and well-organized, with the routing note and Args section taking little space. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is easy to scan and contains no 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?

Despite having a simple schema and an output schema, the description is incomplete for selection and invocation. It fails to state the purpose of SDLC intake triage, when to choose this over the many related it_ops SDLC intake tools, or what the action does with the supplied message and inputs.

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 carry the parameter meaning. The Args section adds minimal semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing, but it remains generic and does not explain what kind of structured inputs the triage action expects or provide examples.

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's first sentence, 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `triage_sdlc_intake`,' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the action accomplishes. It mentions routing and scope, but no concrete verb-resource effect or domain behavior is described, so an agent cannot tell what 'triage_sdlc_intake' actually does.

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 alternatives such as it_ops_website_sdlc_intake, it_ops_feedback_to_sdlc, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description only notes that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is a mechanism, not a usage criterion.

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