start_ai_alert_triage

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing what the AI triage includes (e.g., analysis of alert metadata, related events, comments) and specifying a timeout parameter with default/max values. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects like resource consumption, which would enhance transparency further.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on analysis components and return values. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Returns' section could be more concise by referencing the output schema instead of listing fields. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though slight trimming is possible.

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 tool's complexity (AI triage initiation), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, analysis scope, return structure, and permissions. With annotations (readOnlyHint), a rich input schema (100% coverage), and an output schema (implied by the Returns section), no critical gaps remain. The description effectively complements the structured data without redundancy.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (alert_id, prompt, timeout_seconds) thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the prompt influences AI behavior or typical timeout scenarios. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal extra parameter insight.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start an AI-powered triage analysis for a Panther alert with intelligent insights and recommendations.' It specifies the action ('start'), resource ('Panther alert'), and scope ('AI-powered triage analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ai_alert_triage_summary (which retrieves results) or get_alert (which fetches basic alert data).

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 implies usage context by mentioning it initiates AI triage for alerts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ai_alert_triage_summary (which likely retrieves existing triage results). The permissions field ('Run Panther AI') provides some guidance on prerequisites, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are included.

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