incident_remediation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (Action+Urgency mapping) and mentions 'Urgency follows severity', which gives behavioral insight. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or assumptions about input format.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the lack of output schema and parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. For a tool with two unannotated parameters, failing to describe them leaves the agent without critical information needed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it makes no mention of 'url' or 'document_json'. The agent cannot infer what these parameters represent or how they relate to the tool's operation.

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 it maps affected URIs to recommended Action+Urgency, and provides examples of mappings. It hints at a preview of a correlation function, which distinguishes it from other incident tools, but assumes knowledge of 'incident-correlation-rs.correlate()' and doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like incident_fetch or incident_inspect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Map each affected URI in an Incident Card', which implies usage context, but no when-not or comparison to other incident tools.

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