sr_usage_rca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered (the [READ] tag is redundant with it). The description adds useful behavioral detail about what analysis is performed, but says nothing about cost, runtime, or scope limits for large SR sets.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by three tight clauses describing the analyses, then a compact Args block. The bracketed tags are minor noise but nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the key outputs an agent would care about (cause + action per finding, reclaimable bytes). Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing for a single-optional-param read tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only exposes 'target' as an untyped anyOf with default null, so the description carries the burden — and it does: 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' It fully explains the one parameter's source and default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('SR usage root-cause analysis') and enumerates the exact findings it produces: physical fullness ranking, thin-provision overcommit detection, and orphaned VDI totals with reclaimable bytes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like sr_list, sr_get, and sr_rescan.

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 [RCA] tag and the description of findings imply the diagnostic use case, but the description never says when to pick this over sr_list/sr_get or the sibling *rca tools, nor does it state any exclusion. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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