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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it is transactional, preserves key identifiers, grants a bounded retry, and may perform a bounded live GitHub check that reaches out even when the re-arm itself changes nothing. This aligns with openWorldHint and idempotentHint false and provides meaningful operational context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the key behaviors. It uses some internal jargon like 'replay-guarded' and 'delivered structural prerequisites,' but every sentence adds meaningful detail without excessive length.

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 has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the trigger condition, the actions performed, transactional guarantees, preserved fields, and potential external network access. It leaves some details vague, such as what 'delivered structural prerequisites' means and what the matching cards are, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 only defines escalation_id as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by stating the accepted escalation id types: expand_produced_nothing or roadmap_item_parked. This gives essential meaning that the schema lacks, though it does not explain how to obtain or format such an id.

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 names a specific operation: running the dashboard's dependency re-arm, and details what it does: verifies prerequisites, grants one bounded expand retry, preserves the roadmap item id and depends_on_item_ids, and resolves matching cards. It is clear it is a specialized re-arm action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like resolve_escalation.

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 gives a clear usage condition: pass an expand_produced_nothing or roadmap_item_parked escalation id. This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which alternative to choose for other escalation types.

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