rca_pyrca_validate_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'read-only diagnostic, not an action.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining what the tool checks, that the call needs no configuration, and that the recommendations field indicates what to fix — helpful for agents handling unexpected PyRCA errors.

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-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, usage next, then a succinct checklist, and finally a compact return summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the bulleted checks improve scannability without bloating the text.

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 is complete for a read-only validation tool. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what conditions are checked, and what the response contains. It names the upstream dependent tools and handles the error-recovery case, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already describes token and client_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that these are purely authentication parameters and that 'there is nothing else to configure on this call,' preventing the agent from inventing configuration steps. It could say a bit more about token/client_id roles, but the schema covers those details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: validate the PyRCA integration setup and report which strategy is active. It clearly labels the call as a read-only diagnostic rather than an action, which distinguishes it from the rca_pyrca_*_diagnosis siblings and other rca_* 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to run this: before the first rca_pyrca_epsilon_diagnosis, rca_pyrca_ht_diagnosis, or rca_pyrca_random_walk call when unsure of the active strategy, or when a PyRCA call errors unexpectedly. This is concrete, actionable guidance that also names the related tools.

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