Draft Incident Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and non-mutating. The description adds 'review-first' and 'postmortem draft' to indicate the output is a non-final artifact, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and source without unnecessary detail, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 0% schema coverage and a minimal one-sentence description, the tool is under-specified. The parameters host, hours, and limit are unexplained, and the meaning of 'persisted observations' is vague. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but input semantics and usage context remain incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (host, hours, limit). The agent is left to infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 action (Create), the output (a review-first incident report and postmortem draft), and the data source (persisted observations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_server or snapshot, which focus on analysis or data collection rather than report generation.

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 phrase 'from persisted observations' implies the tool requires prior data collection, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_incident_windows or plan_remediation. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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