explain_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'evidence-backed markdown explanation' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or performance characteristics. The lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is good for conciseness and front-loading. However, it is underspecified for the information needed, leading to a borderline score.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description still lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'evidence-backed' means, what the input incident_id represents, or what format the output takes beyond 'markdown'. This is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 single parameter 'incident_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description adds no meaning about its format, source, or constraints. For a one-parameter tool, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's role, but it does not.

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 indicates the tool provides an explanation of an incident in markdown format, with evidence. The verb 'explain' and resource 'incident' are specific, but does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_node' or 'generate_report', which could also provide incident details.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context for appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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