triggerIncident

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry this burden. It mentions 'Hackathon Simulator' implying non-production use, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, duration, or whether it mutates real data. The description lacks transparency about what happens after triggering.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key context ('Hackathon Simulator'), no redundant information. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information about return values, real-time effects, or post-trigger behavior. It is minimally complete for a hackathon scenario but could be more informative.

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 100% with a single parameter fully defined by enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'incident scenarios', and specifies it's for a hackathon simulator. It distinguishes itself by mentioning '10 supported incident scenarios' and the LangGraph multi-agent pipeline, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'simulate_disaster' tool.

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 alternatives, such as 'simulate_disaster' or other monitoring tools. It only states purpose, not usage context or exclusions.

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