job_failure_rca

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read-only nature (via '[READ]'), the steps involved (pulling sessions, fetching log records), and the output behavior (categorizing worst-first with cited reasons). It doesn't mention potential side effects (none expected) or prerequisites, but those are less critical for a read-only tool.

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 well-structured and efficient: it opens with the core purpose, then outlines the process and output, and ends with an Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: categorized findings with session results and matched error substrings. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure (e.g., a list of findings), but overall it's complete for the tool's complexity.

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 explains the only parameter 'target': 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which only shows nullable string with default null.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Triage recent backup-job sessions: flag every Failed/Warning run.' It also details the RCA categorization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like session_list and session_log.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (investigating failed/warning backup jobs) and implies it is read-only with the '[READ]' prefix. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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