Retrieve a postmortem template to document incident analysis and lessons learned.
ポストモーテムテンプレートを取得します。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "waroom_get_postmortem_template"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes 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 only states the action ('取得します' - get/retrieve), implying a read operation, but doesn't add any context about permissions, rate limits, what the template contains, or how it's formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simple function.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about the template's content, format, or how it relates to other tools. For a basic retrieval tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent use without additional assumptions.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This earns a baseline score of 4, as it correctly aligns with the schema's lack of parameters without adding unnecessary information.
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 purpose ('ポストモーテムテンプレートを取得します' translates to 'Get postmortem template'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'waroom_get_postmortems' or 'waroom_get_incidents', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this template retrieval from other get operations in the system.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'waroom_get_postmortems' for actual postmortems vs. templates). This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.