repository_capacity_rca

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states it pulls per-repository capacity state, reports worst-first, cites free% and free bytes, and suggests an action. The [READ] prefix and 'Pulls' imply read-only. It could add details on permissions or empty-result behavior, but it covers the core behavior well.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The three sections (summary, details, args) are each useful with no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema, the description explains what the output contains (per-repo worst-first findings with free%, free bytes, and action). It is complete for a simple one-param tool, though it doesn't mention edge cases like no repositories under threshold or invalid target.

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?

Only one parameter exists with 0% schema coverage, but the description fully explains it: 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title/default and makes the optional behavior explicit.

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 ('Flag') and resource ('backup repositories running low on free space'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like repository_list, repository_get, and repository_state. It also states the exact purpose with thresholds and ordering.

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 context is clear: this is a capacity RCA tool that reports worst-first findings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the [READ] marker and specific thresholds imply a monitoring use case that differentiates it from simple listing or state tools.

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