search_related_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It states it performs a search, implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, pagination, or result format. For a tool that accesses an external system (Jira), more behavioral context is needed.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks important details, making it minimally acceptable. It earns its place but could be restructured with more front-loaded clarity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description should provide more contextual information about what constitutes a 'related past incident' and how results are presented. The current text leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'project' is described). The tool description does not explain any parameter beyond what the schema already says. The 'keywords' parameter is required but lacks any description, and the description does not clarify its usage or format.

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 ('Search') and the target resource ('Jira related past incidents') with the method ('by keyword'). It sufficiently distinguishes from sibling tools like acknowledge_alerts or create_linfra_ticket, which are clearly different operations. However, it could be more specific about what 'related' means.

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 over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The sibling tools list suggests various operations, but the description does not offer context for selecting this tool.

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