analyze_root_cause

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions outputs (confidence scores, severity, ranked hypotheses) and specific behaviors (handles hardware faults, integrates with OSV.dev). However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies system state, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines core purpose and outputs, second adds hardware fault handling, third mentions CVE integration. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. Perfectly sized for quick agent comprehension.

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 has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should elaborate on the return format and integration details (e.g., how OSV.dev lookup works—are both packageName and packageVersion required?). It only vaguely mentions outputs, leaving the agent to infer response structure. Gaps in output specification and integration usage make it incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking packageName and packageVersion to OSV.dev integration and metrics to hardware faults, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs root cause analysis on system evidence, produces confidence scores, severity, and ranked repair hypotheses. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_system_logs and get_system_metrics by mentioning hardware fault handling and OSV.dev integration, making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when system evidence is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_system_logs. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use. Usage context is inferred but not directly communicated.

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