rca_guide_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful non-obvious behavior: results include the 4 built-in shared samples and availability spans all plans. This is sufficient extra context beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then moves compactly through args and return shape. No sentence is wasted: the built-in sample note, filter semantics, downstream-ID usage, and JSON return format all earn their place.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description covers the important behavioral nuance (built-in samples), return shape, and downstream usage. It lacks only minor details such as pagination/limits or ordering, but the presence of an output schema and the read-only annotations keep the tool callable without those.

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 explains the two user-meaningful filter parameters (equipment_type, tags) with 'omit for all' semantics. It does not mention token or client_id in prose, and the schema-description coverage signal is low, so the agent must rely on the nested schema for auth/client context; this is a clear but acceptable gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('List') and a concrete resource ('ingested troubleshooting guides'), and adds a distinguishing detail: the 4 built-in shared samples are included. It also points forward to related tools (rca_guide_get, rca_guide_delete, rca_dtree_start) that consume the guide_id, which disambiguates it from the surrounding guide tools.

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 says this is the list/listing step and explicitly tells the agent to use the returned guide_id with rca_guide_get, rca_guide_delete, or rca_dtree_start. Optional filtering by equipment_type/tags gives clear context for when it applies, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with rca_guide_search.

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