incident_triage_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism (non-LLM) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, side effects, error conditions, or what the summary contains. Lack of annotation context leaves significant gaps.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the key behavioral trait (deterministic). It is concise but could be slightly expanded without waste.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the summary's content or structure. It does not. Also lacks behavioral context like data source dependencies (Evidence Bundle). Incomplete for a tool with only one param and no annotations.

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?

The only parameter 'incident_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description provides no additional meaning about its format, source, or constraints. This is severely insufficient for correct invocation.

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 it provides a deterministic (non-LLM) summary of an incident from the Evidence Bundle, distinguishing it from the sibling 'incident_triage_run' which is likely LLM-based.

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 it should be used when a deterministic summary is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing evidence bundle), or when not to use.

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