triage_server

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining interpretation pitfalls: severity is policy metadata not impact, HIGH rejection means no trustworthy verdict, INDETERMINATE has a bounded rejection category, and advice is non-executable. These are critical behavioral disclosures that prevent misuse, fully leveraging the description's responsibility.

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 dense paragraph with many caveats. Each sentence adds important interpretation context, but it lacks a clear front-loaded purpose statement and could benefit from bullet points or segmentation. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but not optimally structured.

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 description covers numerous critical caveats about output interpretation (severity, rejection, NO_DATA vs INDETERMINATE, root cause) that are essential for correct use. However, it doesn't explicitly state how the tool behaves for a given hostname or the exact return format, though the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description does not explain the 'at' parameter (presumably a timestamp) or how hostname is used. While hostname is self-explanatory, the lack of any parameter explanation leaves the 'at' parameter ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 indicates this is a point evaluation tool for triage, contrasting with investigate_timeline's half-open window. It identifies the tool as a read-only simulation and mentions returning a point evaluation, which gives a clear sense of the action and resource, though not in a single verb+resource phrase.

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 contrasts this tool with investigate_timeline by noting investigate_timeline uses a half-open [frm, to) window, implying this tool is for point-in-time evaluation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention fleet_health. The numerous 'Do not' statements are usage constraints but not alternative selection guidance.

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