rca_report_generate

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

Describes fallback behavior for missing dependencies, format characteristics, and return structure, adding value beyond annotations (which only indicate non-destructive/non-readonly).

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?

Well-organized with bullet points for formats and sections; front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers inputs, outputs, optional features, and dependencies. Output schema is described implicitly; missing some edge-case details but adequate for the complexity.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, and the tool description adds context about format requirements and output sections, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 generates styled reports from RCA analysis results, lists supported formats, and distinguishes from sibling report tools like rca_report_compare.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use each format (e.g., 'good for GitHub/Slack/Notion' for markdown) and notes fallback behaviors, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling tools.

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