Tabletop exercise

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds the return shape: a scenario plus developments each tagged with a reveal minute, plus room questions. The word 'ready' also signals pre-authored rather than generated content. It stops short of stating pagination, size, or auth needs, so not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core deliverable is stated first and the component list follows. Slightly dense but 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so adequately (scenario, timed developments, questions), which is what an agent needs to know before calling. The absence of any explicit sibling routing or size expectations keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and all three parameters carry enums with defaults, so the schema already documents lang, incident_type, and response_format. The description's 'for an incident type' restates the required parameter without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific deliverable — a ready tabletop exercise for an incident type — and enumerates its components (scenario, timed developments, room questions). That is far more informative than a restated title and lets an agent distinguish it from najjab_playbook or najjab_draft_notice, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you need a pre-built exercise for a given incident type. However, no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or named alternative (e.g. najjab_playbook) is given, so the agent must infer selection from the sibling list alone.

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