backup_failure_rca

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

The description includes a '[READ]' tag indicating read-only behavior, and describes grouping and classification of failures. However, it does not disclose potential performance impact, safety considerations, or limits on data recency beyond the limit parameter.

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, starting with a clear one-liner purpose, followed by bullet-point details and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters, but lacks details about the output format, error handling, or how it fits with other diagnostic tools. Without an output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'limit' is explained as 'max recent log entries to examine' with a default, and 'target' is described as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config' with guidance to omit for default. This compensates for the lack of schema annotations.

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 specifies the verb 'classify' and the resource 'failed/skipped backup runs', listing specific failure categories and actions per job. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like backup_job_list or backup_log_list.

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 implies usage for failure analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_log_list or vm_health_rca. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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