triage_request

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful side effects: the run may open a ticket or escalate to a human, and it returns a decision plus reasons. It does not say whether a ticket is created on every run or conditionally, whether repeated calls duplicate tickets, what permissions are needed, or what the decision/reason payload looks like.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the workflow scope is front-loaded ahead of the outcome list. The comma-spliced list of branch outcomes is dense but readable; nothing is wasted.

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 a multi-step orchestrator with side effects, zero annotations, no output schema, and undescribed parameters, the definition covers the qualitative shape but omits the operational details an agent needs: what 'serial' does, whether ticket creation is conditional, and what the returned decision reasons contain. Nothing is contradicted, but it is thin for this complexity.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. 'text' is self-evident from name, but 'serial' is never tied to the 'check warranty' step, so an agent cannot tell from the definition that omitting it disables or degrades warranty checking. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 concrete operation on a concrete resource ('run the full FixFlow workflow on a support request') and enumerates the sub-steps (classify, find fix, check warranty, answer/open ticket/escalate), which implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings search_manuals, check_warranty, and create_ticket. It stops short of explicitly framing itself as the orchestrator that replaces those calls.

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 only implied: the enumerated sub-steps suggest this is the end-to-end entry point, so an agent can infer it should be preferred over chaining the individual siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-NOT-to-use, and no pointer to the sibling tools that perform single steps.

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