5-Whys Root Cause Tracer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the analysis is recursive and causal; it says nothing about depth limits, output shape, latency, or what the trace produces, so added value beyond annotations is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential concept (crash log -> systemic root cause) is stated first. Slightly dense terminology costs it the top mark.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the 5-Whys output or the mandatory narration gates, the description leaves an agent with only a one-line concept. It is not misleading, but for a tool with this parameter surface it under-delivers.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (label, errorLog, sessionId, narrations, etc.). The description contributes no parameter-level guidance at all; it neither clarifies the optional fields nor the enum format. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 analysis verb ('backward-propagation analysis') and target ('crash log to underlying systemic root cause'), which cleanly separates it from sibling reasoning tools like kilo_grill_plan and kilo_triangulate_research. It is jargon-heavy ('recursive causal backward-propagation') but the resource and outcome are unambiguous.

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?

The crash-log-to-root-cause framing implies when it applies (debugging a specific failure), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement relative to the many siblings that also reason about problems. Usage is left to inference.

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