postmortem_create_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a creation side-effect but does not state whether a file is written, whether existing files are overwritten, whether an API key is required for generation, or what the resulting artifact 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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is not as skeletal as a pure tautology, though it could be expanded to include more useful context without becoming bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain where the template is generated, what side effects occur, what the api_key is for, or how directory relates to the generated artifact, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty.

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 only 50%: 'directory' is described as 'Project directory,' but 'api_key' is completely undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the role of api_key and how directory is used unclear.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Generate post-incident review template.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from postmortem_analyze_timeline and postmortem_track_actions, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling like incident_create_templates, prompt_create_templates, or notify_create_templates. The 'directory' parameter hints at project setup, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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