five_whys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose (drill to systemic cause) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or how it interacts with other systems. This is insufficient for relying on the tool safely.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with an actionable trigger statement. Every sentence is purposeful. However, it could be even more concise by removing the redundant 'Args:' line since the schema already specifies the parameter. Still, it is efficient.

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 no annotations, an output schema (present but not described), and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about what the tool returns, how the analysis progresses, and any limitations. A reader would need more context to understand the full behavior of the 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?

There is one parameter 'symptom' with a description in the main text: 'The visible problem or symptom to investigate.' Schema coverage is 0% (no schema descriptions), so the description should add substantial meaning. The provided line is little more than a restatement of the parameter title, adding minimal value 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 is for 5 Whys root cause analysis and gives an immediate trigger ('Call this immediately when a bug is discovered'). It uses a specific verb ('call') and resource ('root cause analysis'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools like 'fmea_analysis' or 'socratic_challenge', so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('immediately when a bug is discovered') and includes a negative instruction ('DO NOT fix the symptom until you call this'). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which would warrant a 5.

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