waroom_create_postmortem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '作成します' (creates), implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese: 'ポストモーテムを作成します.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero waste or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 the complexity (a creation tool with 4 parameters, 3 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or return values, nor does it provide usage context. For a tool that creates postmortems linked to incidents, more guidance is needed to be 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., title length, blob content, incident UUIDs, status enum). The description adds no meaning beyond this, not even hinting at parameter relationships or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'ポストモーテムを作成します' (Creates a postmortem) states a clear verb+resource but is vague about what a postmortem entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'waroom_create_incident' or 'waroom_create_incident_metrics', which also create resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the postmortem's nature or scope.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing incident UUIDs from 'waroom_get_incidents'), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'waroom_get_postmortems' (which retrieves) or 'waroom_get_postmortem_template' (which might provide templates). The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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