incident-triage-snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses Promise.allSettled and that per-fetcher failures populate a caveats[] array, providing transparency about partial failures. It also lists the sub-tools included. Security or rate limit information is not mentioned, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, components, and response structure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured with bullets for readability, but still clear and not overly verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure: incident metadata, related events, similar past incidents, log-spike heuristic, summary block with severity/duration/spike flag, and caveats array. This completeness allows the agent to understand what to expect without needing an output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For each parameter, it provides context: incidentId tells how to find it, lookbackMinutes gives defaults and max, service explains override behavior, includeLogSpike and includeSimilar describe toggling options, and extractFields explains syntax and benefit.

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 defines the tool as an aggregated incident triage that combines multiple specific queries (get-incident, get-events, search-incidents, aggregate-logs) into one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly replacing a 5-step orchestration and providing a single structured response.

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 states that this tool replaces the `triage-incident` Prompt orchestration, implying when to use it. It also directs users to list-incidents or search-incidents for finding the incident ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the replaced orchestration.

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