generate_postmortem

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

Discloses read-only behavior (consistent with annotations), output capped limits (timeline 20 rows, blast-radius 30 nodes, 10 traces), and that JSON shape carries full data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage, prerequisites, behavior, output detail, and related tools. No fluff, well-organized in a few lines.

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 no output schema, description explains return format (markdown default, JSON optional), caching, and limitations. Prerequisites and behavior covered. Could specify report structure slightly more but adequate for completeness.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining format default ('markdown') and that JSON returns structured shape, plus duration default '1h'. Enhances parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool stitches gateway primitives into a single markdown post-mortem report for one service over a given window. It distinguishes from siblings by listing the primitives combined (anomaly history, blast-radius, traces, log highlights).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after an incident, for a concise document instead of individual tools. Provides prerequisites for each primitive (e.g., anomaly history requires OMCP_ANOMALY_HISTORY_REMOTE_WRITE, traces require Tempo/Jaeger). Also lists related sibling tools.

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