run_incident_playbook

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It omits any mention of side effects, permissions, destruction potential, or rate limits. A user cannot infer whether execution is reversible or safe.

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 sentence, which is concise but severely under-informative. It lacks structure and front-loads minimal information, failing to earn its place by omitting essential details for correct tool invocation.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not clarify return values, parameter relationships, or expected outcomes. The tool's context is barely conveyed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no detail about 'trigger', 'playbook', or 'severity'. It does not explain allowed values, formats, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance for parameter selection.

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 'Execute an incident response playbook' with specific playbook types listed, which clarifies the basic function. However, it does not explain what execution entails (e.g., automation, alerts), and the scope could be inferred from the name. It weakly differentiates from siblings like 'prompt_injection_report' but lacks explicit distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as scan_prompt_injection or generate_compliance_evidence. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion cases is provided.

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