generate_maintenance_recommendations

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes return type (formatted string) and mentions MCP context for user communication. But it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or limitations (e.g., whether it modifies any state). The behavioral context is partial.

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?

Description is concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Uses structured Args/Returns format, which adds slight overhead but remains clear and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Parameters are well covered; output schema exists (though not shown) so return format is partially documented. Missing explicit integration context with sibling tools like assess_vibration_severity, but the description stands alone adequately for its narrow role.

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%, yet description fully explains all parameters: severity_zone as ISO zone letter A-D, fault_types as comma-separated keywords with example, and confidence as 0-1 with default 0. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states it generates maintenance recommendations based on severity and faults, combining ISO zone urgency with fault-specific actions. Distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on analysis (e.g., assess_vibration_severity) or reporting (e.g., generate_iso_report) by being the recommendation generator.

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?

Provides some guidance: 'Leave empty for zone-only advice' indicates when to omit fault_types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after fault detection analysis) or mention prerequisites like running assess_vibration_severity first.

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