rca_pyrca_validate_setup

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context about specific checks performed (strategy availability, sklearn version, attribution compliance) and the return format. This goes beyond the annotations, though no side effects or error conditions are mentioned.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a bullet-like list of checks, and a clear specification of return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With an output schema available (not shown), the return format is described. However, the description lacks information on error cases, prerequisites (beyond the checks themselves), or how this fits into the larger workflow. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 schema has two parameters (token required, client_id optional) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails completely.

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 validates PyRCA integration setup and reports active strategy. It includes a list of checks, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the context of PyRCA setup.

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 this tool should be used before running other PyRCA tools to verify setup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or note any prerequisites. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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