suggest_resolution

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

The description indicates AI-powered behavior, which aligns with the openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, external calls, or failure scenarios. The readOnlyHint is consistent. The description adds minimal context beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence, 12 words, that is directly informative and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and input. It lacks details about the return format or potential failure modes, but it is largely complete given the low 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?

The input schema covers the single required parameter (incident_sys_id) with description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb (get), the output (resolution suggestion), the subject (incident), and the method (based on similar past incidents). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_incident' or 'ml_similar_incidents' by specifying AI-powered resolution suggestion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke it.

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