Triage Canary Preview

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context: findings always live on a .invalid host (RFC 2606) and are fabricated, which explains their nature. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and add a valuable detail about .invalid hosts. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, but the missing parameter explanation leaves a gap. Since the output schema covers return values, the description should at least explain the count parameter; it does not.

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 'count' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot infer what count controls without external knowledge. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 shows fabricated canary findings that triage would mix into a batch, distinguishing it from sibling tools like triage_findings which presumably show real findings. The purpose of confirming decoy plausibility is explicit.

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 gives a use case ('confirming the decoys look plausible') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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