pagerduty_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states creation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering alerts), authorization requirements, rate limits, or the fact that dedup_key enables idempotency. The description is too minimal given the absence of annotations.

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 action and then provide usage context. No unnecessary words, though the first sentence could be slightly more specific about 'rich context'.

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 five parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, error behavior, and usage constraints like the 256 KiB limit (only covered in schema). The completeness is inadequate for reliable tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all five parameters clearly. The description adds 'rich context' but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a PagerDuty incident') and the resource, with a specific use case ('AI-driven escalation during investigations'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tools, which are primarily read or query operations.

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 provides a clear context for use ('during investigations'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references. However, given the sibling tools are all read-oriented, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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