SOC: Incident Timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds what data is returned (timestamps, severity, metric names, message snippets), which is useful but does not reveal any behavioral quirks beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first describes output content, second gives example use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Ideal length for this tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, description lists expected fields (timestamps, severity, metric names, message snippets), which is sufficient for an agent. Could mention ordering or limits, but for a simple read-only timeline, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; both 'since' and 'service' are described. Description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it returns an incident timeline for one service, listing timestamps, severity, metric names, and message snippets. It gives specific use cases ('timeline for service X', 'reconstruct incident for X'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like soc_high_severity_logs, the purpose is clear and distinct.

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?

Provides usage cases ('Use for timeline for service X or reconstruct incident for X'), but lacks guidance on when not to use or comparisons to alternatives among many sibling SOC tools. Some implicit context but not exhaustive.

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