Explains how to answer a DNR investigation through the completion-to-location-to-detail cascade and clarifies the response format without sending data.
Educational: how a DNR (Did Not Receive) investigation is answered — the completion→location→detail cascade. Sends nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait 'Sends nothing' (no side effects), which is valuable, but it does not describe the return format or whether the explanation is fixed or generated.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the educational framing and the cascade model, followed by the no-side-effects note. No wasted language.
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 zero-parameter educational tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose and the no-op behavior. It could say more about what the response looks like, but the essential call context is present.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; no schema details are missing.
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 states a specific educational purpose: explaining how a DNR investigation is answered via the completion→location→detail cascade. The verb 'Educational' plus the named process is clear, though sibling differentiation is only implicit via 'Sends nothing'.
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?
It does not say when to use this tool versus the sibling educational/analytical tools (dsp_thresholds, explain_metric, etc.). The only usage-adjacent cue is 'Sends nothing,' which implies safety but not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.