build_incident_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — gathers evidence already available to the server.' It discloses behavioral traits: returns both envelope and narrative, redaction defaults, and that v1 doesn't fetch tx bodies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It is detailed but not overly verbose; every sentence provides necessary context for a complex tool. Slight verbosity in roadmap details could be trimmed, but justified given tool complexity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior (scopes, redaction, incident classes), the description is very complete. It explains return values (envelope and narrative), limitations, and deferred features. It fully compensates for lack of output schema and provides all needed context for safe use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining practical usage, e.g., 'v1 doesn't fetch the tx body itself' for txHash and linking scope to evidence collection. It enriches parameter meaning without relying solely on schema.

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 'Build a forensic incident-report bundle for a security review or disclosure.' The verb is 'build', the resource is an incident report bundle, and it distinguishes itself from a future submit companion tool. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_history' by noting it uses the same data path but for evidence gathering.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for scope, redaction modes, and incident_class. It states when to use 'none' redaction only for trusted contacts and that v1 only builds, not submits. It references a v2 roadmap for submission and deferred tx evidence, giving clear context on limitations and alternatives.

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