open_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does reveal two behavior modes (JSONL log in demo, ticketing webhook in live), which is useful. However, it does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, failure modes, or any other potential side effects beyond where the record is sent.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes essential context about demo vs live modes without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. The demo/live distinction is helpful but does not make the tool usable without additional information about inputs and expected behavior.

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 4 required parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The names (summary, severity, diagnosis, model_name) are somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no guidance on expected format, allowed values (no enums), or how they relate. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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: 'Open an incident record', with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context about demo (JSONL log) and live (ticketing webhook) environments, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollback and drift report operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions demo/live modes, but does not state conditions for opening an incident or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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