propose_remediation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait: proposed commands are never executed, implying a safe, non-mutating proposal operation. However, it does not state whether the proposal is persisted, whether authentication is required, or any other side effect beyond non-execution.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both sentences earn their place, though the overall terseness is a consequence of missing content rather than an efficient treatment of a well-understood tool.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description should do much more. It omits parameter meaning, usage context, and differentiation from siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that alone does not compensate for the missing operational detail.

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 both required parameters ('kind' and 'evidence_json') are completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning about valid values, expected format, or purpose for either parameter, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 says 'Propose text-only actions,' which largely restates the name 'propose_remediation' in other words. It does not clarify what kind of remediation is proposed or distinguish this tool from siblings like incident_report or evidence_snapshot, so an agent gets little beyond the name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The statement 'No proposed command is ever executed here' is a safety note, not usage guidance, and it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over the many other system/incident tools.

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