correlate_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, whether the triage is read-only, what it returns, or how long it might take. 'Automated' hints at analysis but provides no concrete behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence with the action and goal front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a high-complexity tool that correlates multiple external systems, the description is incomplete. It lacks any behavioral, output, or prerequisite context, and with no annotations and no output schema, a single purpose sentence leaves too many gaps for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters. The description mentions deployment timestamps, git diffs, and stacktraces, which loosely map to some parameters, but it adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Run automated triage') and names the data sources correlated (deployment timestamps, git diffs, Sentry stacktraces) plus the goal ('find the root cause'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like explain_incident or find_regression.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The purpose implies the usage, but an agent still has to infer routing from the one-sentence description and sibling names alone.

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