Turn a completed investigation into a Markdown post-mortem report, capturing summary, probable cause, affected systems, next actions, and checkpoint timeline.
Export a completed investigation as a Markdown post-mortem (summary, probable cause, affected systems, next actions, checkpoint timeline).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task ID of a completed investigation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output content but does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires special permissions, or what happens if the investigation is not completed. 'Export' suggests a read operation but is not explicit, and error conditions are absent.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource, enumerates the output sections, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every element contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the content of the output, but it leaves ambiguous how the Markdown is returned (e.g., string, file path) and does not address error cases for non-completed investigations. These are material gaps given the absence of annotations.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter task_id, describing it as 'Task ID of a completed investigation'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about task_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states the specific verb 'Export', the resource 'completed investigation', and the output format 'Markdown post-mortem', and lists the exact sections (summary, probable cause, affected systems, next actions, checkpoint timeline). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like investigate_incident, get_investigation, and search_incident_memory, which serve different purposes.
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 when an investigation is completed and a post-mortem export is needed, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The distinction from get_investigation or investigate_incident is left to the agent's inference, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.