incident_timeline

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the remaining burden is interpretive guidance. The description supplies exactly that with 'Time order only — never causation', telling the agent how to read the output and warning against causal inference, plus the tagging scheme that shapes interpretation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the mental model of the output and then the usage question; every clause (onset, impact, tag list) maps to real content the agent must understand. The single sentence is long but not padded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still characterizes them well via the phase tags. For a one-parameter read-only analytics tool this is close to sufficient; only the path parameter's meaning is left entirely unaddressed.

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 0% and the single parameter 'path' is undocumented in the description, so the agent gets no format, source, or relative-vs-absolute guidance. The parameter is largely self-evident, which keeps this from being worse than baseline.

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 names a concrete analytic artifact (an ordered incident timeline of onset, impact, firmware verdicts and findings) and enumerates the phase tags it emits, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_events or log_summary, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives an explicit use case in the user's own words: 'what failed first, and is the rest just the crash?'. That is clear context for when to reach for this tool, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is stated.

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