Chainsaw: SRUM analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, but the description explains WHY this non-read-only analysis tool mutates state: output is stored under a result handle. It also clarifies inline output is a preview. That is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the wrapping detail and the output-routing note. Slightly more could be said about result-handle mechanics, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that output lands in a result handle and must be retrieved via chainsaw_result_export. Required inputs and their constraints are covered by the schema. Reasonably complete, though it omits any note on large-database runtime or evidence-root requirements.

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 all four parameters (srum_db, software_hive, stats_only, preview_bytes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyse the System Resource Usage Monitor (SRUM) database') and names the underlying command. An agent can distinguish it from other analyse_* siblings by resource, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 a downstream routing hint ('use chainsaw_result_export for the complete text'), which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose SRUM analysis over the other analysis tools, and no prerequisites beyond what the schema enforces.

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