arthas_cookbook

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'proven step-by-step' recipe, but does not mention any side effects, latency, or authentication requirements. For a read-only, simple tool, this is minimally adequate but could add details about output size or format.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second gives usage hints. No fluff.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains how to get a topic or list all topics. Could mention output format or length, but not critical.

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 100% with an enum listing all topics. The description adds value by noting that omitting the topic lists all topics and by providing example symptoms in the text, which aids understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a proven step-by-step Arthas command recipe for a common production symptom.' It lists example symptoms and positions itself as the starting point for diagnosis, distinguishing it from sibling tools that execute commands directly.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'START HERE when diagnosing a symptom instead of composing commands from scratch' and 'Call without arguments to list topics.' This tells the agent when to use it and what happens with no arguments. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is strong.

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