rca_dtree_generate_from_fmea

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tree is ingested as a json_dtree guide when save_as_guide=True, which is a side effect. It does not address authentication needs or error conditions, but the annotations cover safety, so the description adds meaningful context.

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 organized with a header, bullet-like Args and Returns, and an emoji. It includes a usage note about passing guide_id. It could be more concise, but the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 covers the core functionality, output format, and integration with rca_dtree_start. It assumes familiarity with FMEA analysis and result IDs. Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, it is fairly complete, though details on prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain fmea_result_id) are missing.

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 lists parameters (fmea_result_id, equipment_id, equipment_type, save_as_guide) but provides no explanation of their meaning or constraints. The input schema has descriptions for fmea_result_id and save_as_guide, but equipment_id and equipment_type lack descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond 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 it auto-generates a diagnostic decision tree from a completed FMEA analysis, converting HIGH-priority failure modes into a yes/no tree. It distinguishes from siblings like rca_dtree_start by specifying the input (FMEA result) and the output (guide_id for start).

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 when to use: after completing an FMEA analysis, to generate a diagnostic tree. It also mentions the flow with save_as_guide and passing guide_id to rca_dtree_start. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative methods like direct guide ingestion.

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