dispatch_ag2_incident

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

The description goes beyond basic purpose by disclosing the multi-agent pipeline, the SEMI_AUTO behavior (plan returned for human review, execution gated by SecurityGatekeeper), the required scope 'ag2:incident:invoke', and the ProofLink receipt. With no annotations provided, this rich disclosure is valuable, though it leaves some details (e.g., rejection behavior) unstated.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value, including the use-case list and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and gets more specific later, which is good structure.

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 the tool's complexity (a multi-agent dispatch with no output schema or annotations), the description covers the process, return values, use cases, and security context well. Minor gaps like error handling or return format prevent a perfect score.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (service, severity, description). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (dispatch an IT incident to the AG2 GroupChat for autonomous diagnosis), describes the routing chain, return value, and lists concrete use cases. This differentiates it from sibling incident-related tools like get_incident_details or list_recent_incidents that read rather than dispatch.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for real incidents' followed by concrete examples, giving clear when-to-use context. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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