complete_postmortem_onboarding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses preconditions (freshness, single-track, 10-second window, no prior comparison), which is genuinely useful. However it does not state what completing the panel actually does to state (persist? notify? irreversible?), what failure looks like when the handoff is stale, or what is returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and dependency, no padding. The dense jargon in the second sentence is compact but costs a little readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it explains entry conditions but not the resulting state change or failure/error behavior for a tool that clearly mutates onboarding status. Adequate for a two-parameter tool but leaves the outcome opaque.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (track, diagnosis) are already documented in the schema with equivalent meaning. The description adds only the emphasis that the diagnosis must be the 'exact' one you wrote, which is marginal. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: send the diagnosis (produced by analyze_track) to the 'Post Mortem panel'. The dependency on a sibling is explicit, so an agent can place it in the workflow. It is somewhat jargon-laden ('Post Mortem panel', 'first-run onboarding'), but the action is identifiable.

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?

Gives clear sequencing ('After analyze_track'), a prerequisite ('fresh matching 10-second single-track handoff'), and an exclusion ('comparisons cannot complete first-run onboarding'), which routes against compare_tracks. It lacks explicit when-not guidance for any other tool, but the core usage conditions are present.

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