dume_get_incident_rca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and where data comes from (~/.dume/assets/incidents/), but says nothing about behavior when the incident is not found, permission requirements, or whether the runbook is static or generated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return value and scoped by the resource. Every phrase adds information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a single required parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description should specify incident_id format or source. It also omits error behavior, which matters for a lookup tool with no annotations.

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 sole parameter, incident_id, is undocumented beyond its type. The description does not explain the expected format or where incident IDs come from (e.g., dume_list_module_context or logs), leaving a critical gap for invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('root cause analysis and resolution runbook for a logged incident card'), including the storage location. Clear enough to distinguish from generic reads like dume_read_adr or dume_get_error_details, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as dume_get_error_details or dume_list_module_context. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name and description alone.

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