logistics_disruption_recovery

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

The description adds 'deterministic playbook' and 'free', implying predictable, safe behavior. Annotations are minimal (no destructive or readOnly hints), so the description provides some context but does not fully disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or rate limits.

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 very concise with three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. While it could benefit from more detail, it avoids 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, error handling, prerequisites, or how to interpret results, which are essential for effective use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the default baseline is 3. The description does not add any specific parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor detracts from the parameter semantics.

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 it is for logistics/fleet/supply-chain disruptions with examples like port delays, vehicle failures, route cascades. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like quick_operational_recovery or crisis_intervention, which may have overlapping use cases.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest specific scenarios for choosing it over similar tools like 'quick_operational_recovery' or 'process_failure'.

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