start_print_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions creating a recovery session and tracking lifecycle but omits critical behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, whether multiple sessions can exist, or what happens on re-call. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Description is concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and then succinctly describe parameters. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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?

As a tool initiating a recovery workflow, the description does not mention what the tool returns (expected to be a session ID), which is a significant gap given no output schema. Preconditions (must have a recovery plan) are implied but not explicit, leaving the agent without full context.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning by explaining the source of plan_id (a plan_failure_recovery result) and the role of failure_id. This provides context beyond the schema's type and title, but lacks format or constraints.

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?

Description explicitly states it begins executing a recovery plan and creates a recovery session. The verb 'start' plus 'print_recovery' clearly identifies the action and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan_failure_recovery' and 'complete_print_recovery'.

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?

Description specifies that plan_id must come from a plan_failure_recovery result and failure_id is the addressed failure, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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