aries_incident_report

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that submissions enter a review queue and become searchable after operator approval, and that inputs are auto-sanitized. This provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 paragraph but well-structured: it starts with purpose, then usage scenarios, then security. It is not overly verbose and conveys necessary information efficiently.

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 11 parameters (6 required) and no output schema, the description explains the submission flow and security constraints. It adequately covers when to use and what to include, though it could mention the return value or confirmation.

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 82%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning auto-sanitization for bad_code and a security warning about secrets, but does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Record' and the specific resources (mistakes, bugs, rule violations, pitfalls) related to Alkanes/Subfrost. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling aries_incident_query by indicating this is for creating records, not querying them.

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 explicit scenarios for when to file: 'whenever you make an error worth not repeating, hit a surprising behaviour, or learn a non-obvious gotcha.' It also includes security caveats but does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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