fabric_analyze_incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'analyze' without explaining what happens to the input, what the output looks like, whether there are side effects, or any other behavioral details. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and subject. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value or behavior, but it does not. The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical gaps about expected output and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 already provides a 100% description of the 'input' parameter as 'The input text to process'. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that the input should relate to security incidents or system failures, helping the agent understand the expected content. This goes beyond the generic schema description, so it earns above the baseline.

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 a specific action ('Analyze') and a specific resource ('security incidents or system failures'). It is not a tautology and gives a good sense of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fabric_analyze_logs or fabric_analyze_claims, which also perform analysis on different subjects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, making it hard for an agent to know when to select this tool over others.

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