sc:troubleshoot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The 'Priority: CRITICAL' is not behavioral information. The description is silent on key behavioral aspects.

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 a single sentence that includes category and priority tags. It is concise but not overly terse. The information is front-loaded, though the tags add minor noise. No unnecessary repetition.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context on return values, error handling, or typical use cases. It omits behavioral and outcome details, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add value beyond the schema, matching the baseline. The parameter descriptions themselves are adequate.

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 generic phrase 'Intelligent problem diagnosis and systematic resolution' which conveys the general purpose but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like sc:analyze or sc:explain. The tool name 'troubleshoot' partially compensates, but the description adds little clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Category: analysis' hints at a domain but does not specify context or exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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