crisis_intervention

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

With no annotations providing hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description carries full burden. It mentions 'start or resume' suggesting state mutation but does not detail side effects, safety, or whether it creates sessions or modifies data. The description is vague about behavioral outcomes beyond receiving steps.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One-call crisis path') and concisely lists key steps. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the tool's basic function. It does not describe return values, explain optional parameters, or provide guidance on parameter combinations. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, only loosely referencing 'name the rupture' which maps to incident_summary. It does not explain other parameters like source, urgency, ritual_strip, or response_profile.

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 tool is a 'one-call crisis path' for starting or resuming crisis intervention, providing the first grounding and recovery steps. This verb-resource combination (start/resume crisis path) distinguishes it from sibling tools like grounding_protocol or sit_with by implying a comprehensive initial response.

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 implies usage for initiating or continuing a crisis intervention but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like grounding_protocol or quick_checkin. It lacks exclusions or context for sibling differentiation.

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