nexalayer_known_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world behaviour, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context: no API-key/auth requirement, no cost, and the fact that matches yield executable workaround.steps. It stops short of describing the match semantics or response shape in detail, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the invocation trigger, then the fallback action and cost note. Nothing is redundant, though the final 'No API key needed; no charge' clause is slightly tangential to selection and could be trimmed.

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?

For a read-only, argument-light lookup tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential call trigger and the follow-up behaviour ('run its workaround.steps'). It does not explain how matching works or what the returned list contains, which leaves a modest gap for such a workflow-critical tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it only clarifies one of three parameters (error_code, with example values UPSTREAM_UNAVAILABLE / BACKEND_ERROR). The enum parameter 'status', its default, and 'component' are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is partial.

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 ('List known issues') plus the distinguishing feature 'machine-runnable workaround steps', which separates it from a plain status/issue listing. It also implicitly routes against sibling report_issue via 'before filing a ticket' and 'instead of reporting', so an agent can tell what this tool is for versus its neighbours.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this with the error_code from a failed tool call'), the ordering constraint ('before filing a ticket'), and the alternative action when a match is found ('run its workaround.steps instead of reporting'). It even pre-empts operational concerns with 'No API key needed; no charge', leaving almost nothing to inference.

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