replication_lag_rca

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It begins with '[READ]' signaling a non-mutating operation and explains the offline vs. live pull behavior, including 'flavor-branched' logic. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not detail return format or error scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief usage note, then a clear argument list. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. The slight redundancy of describing 'status' twice is minor and does not detract.

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 complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the input modes and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, it does not describe the format of the 'cause + action' output, which would be helpful for an RCA tool. Otherwise, it is quite complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'status' is an injected replica status record (optional), and 'target' is a config-based target name (optional with default). This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 uses a specific verb 'Map' with a clear resource: replica thread state/lag/error fields to cause+action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like replica_status (which retrieves status) and other RCA tools (slow_query_rca, lock_wait_rca) focused on different domains.

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 explicitly explains two usage modes: passing a status from replica_status for offline analysis, or omitting it to fetch live replica status. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over sibling RCA tools.

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