rca_guide_generate_report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about format availability per plan (Starter+/Pro+), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a brief list of report contents and arguments. However, the emoji and plan marketing could be considered extraneous, slightly reducing clarity.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. But the description fails to mention the required 'token' parameter and does not provide a complete overview of all inputs. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is not fully complete.

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 must compensate. While it lists some parameters (session_id, format, include_guide_refs, custom_title), it omits the required 'token' and 'client_id'. The description does not clarify token's necessity or default behavior for client_id, leaving gaps.

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's purpose: generating a maintenance/troubleshooting report from a completed diagnostic session. The verb 'generate' and resource 'report' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rca_report_generate, missing explicit distinction.

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 a completed diagnostic session, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rca_report_generate). No preconditions or exclusions are provided, leaving it somewhat vague.

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