rca_guide_get

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds return format details ('JSON with metadata and sections'), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus Args/Returns. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. Lacks examples or error handling, but sufficient for a simple read tool.

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%, but description lists 'guide_id, optional section_id', clarifying their roles and that section_id allows fetching a specific section. Adds meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a full troubleshooting guide or a specific section', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rca_guide_search and rca_guide_list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rca_guide_search or rca_guide_list. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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