incident_affected_walk

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

The description explains the tool's behavior: it walks the affected block and returns every referenced Suite document. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not cover error cases or what happens when no affected block exists. With no annotations, this is decent but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized.

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?

While the description covers the output and use cases, it omits parameter explanations, which are crucial for correct invocation. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on input usage would be expected.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'url' or 'document_json'. It only describes the output, leaving the input semantics entirely to the schema, which provides no descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool walks an Incident Card's `affected` block and returns referenced Suite documents as { uri, kind }, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like incident_fetch by focusing on walking the affected block.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'useful as the seed list for incident-correlation-rs or fan-out validation via aeo-validator-service.' While it gives context, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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