When an AI triage agent falls short on a hard incident, it’s usually in one of three ways. It’s slow, because much of its time goes to relearning your environment. It’s vague, because nobody told it what the answer should look like. Or it’s confidently wrong, because nothing checked the answer before you acted on it. Each has its own fix, and none of them is waiting on the next model. ...
Every week, an automation pulls PagerDuty data and writes a trends report — top services, alert noise by rotation. Humans read it at the weekly review and adjust priorities. The report goes into Notion or the team wiki. A week later, someone asks an agent — “what are the recent PD trends?” The agent has MCP access to both PagerDuty and the team’s docs. Retrieval finds the report. It matches the query perfectly: same words, polished structure, topical headings. The agent answers from the report. ...
Most AI agent setups that disappoint their teams don’t disappoint because the model is wrong. They disappoint because the agent was asked to reason about systems it can’t see. A triage agent without PagerDuty access produces a vague analysis. An on-call agent without metrics hallucinates a root cause from alert titles. The agent isn’t bad; it’s undercontexted. Context engineering is the long game, and it has a structure. Specifically, it has four techniques — not a staircase. Each one matches a different shape of context source, and which ones apply depends on what you already have. A team with a CLI-heavy internal stack will spend most of its effort on technique 3. A team whose vendors all expose public MCPs might never touch technique 2. What remains true, regardless, is that technique 4 — bundling — is what turns any subset of the others into a team asset. ...
The limiting factor on how quickly an on-call engineer resolves an incident is rarely the rate at which they make decisions. It is the rate at which they can look at things — logs, metrics, traces, dashboards, SSH sessions — and assemble a picture of what the system is doing. Decision-making is cheap once the picture exists. Building the picture is where the time goes. This work is structurally single-seat. To bring a colleague in, an engineer has to translate what they have already seen: which log lines, when the metric started climbing, and what the network trace confirmed. The translation cost is high enough that most on-call engineers defer involving others until the problem forces it. The team is nominally 24/7; in practice, investigations happen alone. ...