rca_analysis_run_async

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it returns a task_id immediately, requires the async_tasks feature, and must be polled with rca_analysis_poll_task. This is meaningful context that annotations alone do not provide, though it does not cover failure modes or cancellation behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence explains the core behavior, followed by prerequisites, alternative, return value, and parameter details. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a background-task tool: it covers when to use it, prerequisites, the immediate return value, how to poll, and the parameter semantics. The sibling list provides additional context, and the description names the exact polling tool to use next.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds valuable context for model_id, payload, save, and tags, including that model_id must already exist and that payload matches rca_analysis_run's expected shape. It omits token and client_id, but those are less central and are described in the schema.

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 verb and resource: submitting a long-running RCA analysis as a background task rather than blocking. It also names the synchronous sibling rca_analysis_run, which makes the distinction between the two immediately obvious.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (long-running analysis / large datasets) and when not to (most models on typical data sizes), and points to rca_analysis_run as the simpler alternative. It also instructs the caller to use rca_analysis_poll_task to retrieve results, leaving no ambiguity about the follow-up workflow.

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