contact_depscope

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

The description supplements annotations by explaining that anomaly routes to structured triage and stating the return value ({ticket_id} or {anomaly_id}). It doesn't contradict annotations, and the annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false).

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the all-caps and dense single-paragraph structure makes it slightly harder to scan. Still, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when to use it and what to expect in return. The category routing and anomaly requirements are covered, though it doesn't mention potential side effects or response format details beyond IDs.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping category-specific usage to the kind parameter and emphasizing anomaly fields, slightly enhancing the schema's guidance.

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 identifies the tool as an inbound ticket creator for five specific categories (bug/listing/security/anomaly/partnership), with a specific verb 'reporting' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by its contact/ticket nature.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' guidance for each category, including special requirements for anomaly (tool_called+observed+expected). This makes it clear when to use this tool instead of siblings, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives.

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