investigate_incidentInvestigate AWS incidents automatically by providing incident type and resource, returning root cause analysis and affected dependencies within a specified time window.
Run automated incident investigation workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| resource | Yes | ||
| incident_type | Yes | ||
| time_range_hours | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only promises an 'automated incident investigation workflow'. It does not mention side effects, permissions, changing state, resource impact, or operational boundaries, so an agent cannot predict what invoking this tool will actually do.
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 very short and front-loaded with 'Run', but it achieves brevity by omitting substance. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so while not bloated, it does not earn its length with useful detail.
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 workflow tool with four parameters, only two required, no annotation context, and no parameter documentation, this description is grossly incomplete. Even with an output schema available, the agent lacks sufficient information to invoke it correctly or safely.
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 adds no meaning about incident_type, resource, region, or time_range_hours. It does not clarify required values, optional behavior, or how time_range_hours affects the investigation.
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 'Run automated incident investigation workflow' essentially restates the tool's name and title without explaining what the investigation does. It identifies an action and resource but remains vague and does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like impact_analysis or get_context.
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 state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusionary conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.