runpod_pod_troubleshoot

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the diagnostic steps: existence check, RUNNING status, GPU attachment, port exposure, and ComfyUI probing. It also states it returns the blocker and next step. The 'Read-only' declaration is a bonus.

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 concise, using 4-5 sentences with front-loaded purpose, structured checks, and outcome. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 troubleshooting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and what it returns (specific blocker and next step). It is complete for its intended use.

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 single parameter pod_id is described in the schema as 'The RunPod pod ID to troubleshoot.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 diagnoses pod usability issues, listing specific scenarios ('won't connect', ComfyUI unreachable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like runpod_pod_status by detailing the checks performed.

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 description says 'call this when' with concrete scenarios, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternative tools like get_logs.

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