rca_analysis_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, prerequisites). It does not contradict annotations but fails to augment them.

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 two sentences plus a compact Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions return content (narrative, causes, actions). Could mention prerequisite of a valid result_id, but not a major gap.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage at top level, but inner fields result_id and detail_level have descriptions. The description repeats these and adds the 'brief/standard/verbose' pattern but doesn't explain token or client_id. Schema coverage is low but description partly compensates.

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 generates a structured explanation of an RCA result, specifying verb 'Generate' and resource 'RCA result explanation'. It mentions three detail levels, distinguishing it from siblings like rca_analysis_get_result (raw result) and rca_analysis_compare (comparison).

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 implies usage after having a result_id but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like rca_analysis_get_result or rca_analysis_query_results. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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