incident_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one meaningful non-obvious trait: this tool is non-mutating ('never remediates'). However, it says nothing about what it reads, whether it writes any report artifact, permission needs, or scope of evidence collection. The safety declaration is valuable, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 single clause is tight and front-loads the core idea followed by the negative constraint. It is concise to the point of under-specification, so it earns its brevity but not a high mark for structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves critical gaps: what 'kind' selects, how path/service narrow the evidence, and what the tool actually produces. For a three-parameter investigation tool, this is inadequate.

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% across three parameters (kind, path, service), and the description adds no information about any of them. An agent cannot tell what 'kind' accepts, what 'path' scopes against, or how 'service' filters, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 frames the tool as converting read-only evidence into hypotheses, which gestures at analysis but never states plainly that it produces an incident report or what evidence it consumes. It does distinguish itself negatively from the remediation path ('this tool never remediates'), which helps separate it from propose_remediation. Still, the purpose is stated metaphorically rather than concretely.

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 when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or naming of alternatives. The phrase 'this tool never remediates' implies the agent should reach for propose_remediation when action is needed, which is a weak but real routing signal. Usage remains largely inferred from the tool name.

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