itsm_trigger_detection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs all detectors, returns raw findings, and does not create tickets, which covers the primary non-mutating behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects such as triggering network scans, resource usage, or how failures are handled, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It efficiently lists the detectors and the key non-ticket behavior without any fluff or repetition, earning a perfect score for conciseness and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, but it only says 'raw findings' without specifying format, structure, or potential variations. The tool's purpose is clear, but the nature of the output and any failure modes are underspecified, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent needing full context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about the tool's action and output, which goes beyond the empty input schema, fulfilling the semantic requirement.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and explicitly names all 5 incident detectors (iSELF, Prometheus, Wazuh, NetworkScanner, OctoAI), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from ticket-creating tools by stating 'without creating tickets', which aligns with sibling tool names like itsm_create_ticket.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose: run all detectors and return raw findings without escalating to tickets. This implies use cases requiring aggregated raw output rather than ticket creation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over running individual detectors or mention exclusions. The context is clear, yet lacks explicit alternatives.

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