rca_analysis_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: the output shape varies by detail_level, recommended actions are ranked and heuristic, and it returns a not_found error when the result is missing or owned by another user.

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 well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement, an explicit contrast with the sibling tool, a compact Args list, and a clear Returns section. Every sentence adds useful information; no filler exists.

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 read-only explanation tool, the description covers the input requirements, the supported detail levels with concrete output differences, the return format, and the error case. Together with the annotations and schema, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 description adds real meaning to result_id (must come from a prior analysis call) and detail_level (exact value meanings and resulting output shape), which goes beyond the schema's brief labels. It does not discuss token or client_id, though those are auth/namespace parameters already described in the schema, so the omission is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a stored RCA result into a human-readable explanation' with recommended actions. It explicitly contrasts itself with rca_analysis_get_result's raw JSON, making the tool's unique role clear among siblings.

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 states why this tool is useful ('for a chat response or incident writeup') and directly names the alternative it should be chosen over ('as opposed to rca_analysis_get_result's raw JSON'). This gives an agent explicit selection guidance.

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