Triage issue end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing what data is combined and that it returns prioritized actions, though it does not mention potential performance costs of the orchestration. Overall, it complements the annotations well.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words. The structure effectively communicates the tool's role and usage.

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 as an orchestrator, the description covers what it combines (report detail, evidence, etc.), what it returns (prioritized actions), and its equivalent in Sentry. It is self-contained and provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially with the existing output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that report_id triggers triage but does not elaborate on project_id or include_logs beyond their schema descriptions. No additional semantics are provided.

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 it is a read-only orchestration tool that combines multiple data sources into a triage packet and returns recommended next actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it should be called before dispatch_fix, making its unique role clear.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this before dispatch_fix' and to 'Pass report_id to kick off triage,' providing clear usage context. It implies when to use (for comprehensive triage) and when not to (if single data sources are sufficient), effectively guiding agent selection.

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