td_detect_instability

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, adequately conveying the non-mutating nature. The description adds that it detects specific signals (FPS, heavy cookers, critical errors) but provides no further behavioral context such as output format or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse, lacking structure or front-loading of critical information beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the detection entails, how the path parameter affects the scan, or how it differs from sibling tools like td_cooking_info and td_get_errors. The description is incomplete for a tool that detects multiple signals.

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 description coverage is 100%; the only parameter ('path') already has a description ('Root path to inspect'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for this parameter.

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 states the verb 'detect' and lists the resources (instability signals: FPS, heavy cookers, critical errors). However, it lacks clarity on what exactly constitutes 'heavy cookers' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like td_cooking_info or td_get_errors, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as td_cooking_info or td_get_errors. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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