timps_postmortem_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose behavioral details. It does not say whether 'write' means generating text, creating files/directories (e.g., runbooks), mutating a repo, or merely returning content. The extent of agent autonomy and side effects is undefined.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs a clear verb, object, and specific deliverable list with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For an agent with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits key context: what the agent does with its outputs, whether it operates on the repo/workspace, how it gets incident facts, what the interaction model is, and how it differs from timps_incident_responder or timps_disaster_recovery. The vague 'request' param plus the odd 'python' default further obscure actual usage.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, establishing baseline 3. The tool description adds minimal value on top of the schema, and the language parameter's relevance to a postmortem is not explained beyond 'Primary programming language (default: python)'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') plus a distinct resource ('postmortems') and enumerates concrete deliverables ('5 Whys, root causes, P0-P2 action items, runbooks'). While it does not name sibling tools, the intent is unmistakable and meaningfully scoped among agent tools.

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. Sibling tools such as timps_incident_responder, timps_incident_response_coordinator, and timps_disaster_recovery clearly overlap with a postmortem workflow, yet the description gives no 'when-to-use' / 'when-not-to-use' direction or mention that a postmortem typically follows an incident.

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