rca_guide_ingest

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds behavioral context: auto-extraction of fault codes, plan limits, and indexing behavior. It does not contradict 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?

The description is well-organized with a title, format details, plan limits, and an Args line. It front-loads the purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., repeating formats) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 formats, auto-extraction, searchability, plan limits, and the return structure (guide_id, section_count, etc.). It lacks details on error handling or token requirements, but given output schema existence, it is sufficiently 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?

The description lists parameter names (equipment_id, equipment_type, etc.) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0% (many fields lack descriptive text), so the description should compensate but fails to provide semantics for each parameter.

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 uploads and indexes an equipment troubleshooting guide. It specifies supported formats (markdown, plain, json_dtree) and notes auto-extraction of fault codes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rca_guide_search.

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 mentions immediate searchability after ingestion and plan limits (Starter up to 10, Pro up to 100, Enterprise unlimited), giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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