run_path_usage_pattern_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'runs' a sanitizer, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. The term 'sanitizer' is vague and could imply data modification, but this is not clarified.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key condition. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief, as it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. Still, it earns its place by being non-redundant.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's role among many similar siblings, does not describe output or side effects, and leaves agents without enough information to invoke it correctly in context.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The tool's description does not explain any of the five parameters (jsonl_path, report_directory, run_id, confirm, timeout). Without this, an agent cannot determine what values to provide beyond their names and types. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'local X-Tension JSONL usage-pattern sanitizer'. It adds a condition 'only when case-read gate is enabled', which clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate from a very similar sibling tool 'run_case_db_path_string_triage' with a nearly identical name, leading to potential confusion.

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 includes a usage condition ('only when case-read gate is enabled'), which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative tools (e.g., 'run_case_db_path_string_triage') that might be more appropriate in other scenarios.

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