Report PhishFort Incident

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context of 'after approval' and the dual purpose (takedown or monitoring), which is useful but does not significantly expand behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but at the cost of clarity. It earns its place yet is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters, making it adequately sized but not effectively informative.

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?

The tool is complex with many required parameters and an approval workflow, but the description lacks details about prerequisites, output, or parameter dependencies. With an output schema exists, but the description ignores it, leaving significant gaps.

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 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It provides no explanation for any parameter (e.g., 'action', 'approval_id', 'destructive_confirmed'), leaving agents to guess their meaning and usage.

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 the tool reports an incident for takedown or monitoring after approval, which provides a verb and resource. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like phishfort_request_incident_action or phishfort_add_comment, leaving ambiguity about its exact role.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'after approval' as a precondition, but does not specify when or why this tool should be chosen over similar sibling tools.

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