Look up remediation advice and thresholds for network issues by category—physical, packet loss, or latency—to resolve problems using the triage runbook.
Look up specific remediation advice and thresholds from the triage runbook.
Valid categories: 'physical' (or 'signal', 'L1'), 'packet_loss' (or 'loss'), 'latency' (or 'RTT', 'bufferbload').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, what the return format is, whether it can fail for invalid categories, or any side effects. The description is purely about input validation, not behavior.
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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the parameter guidance is compactly listed. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the input domain well but omits return value details and error behavior. An agent could call it correctly with a valid category, but would not know what to expect in the response or how to handle an invalid category.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating valid values and aliases for the single parameter, which is genuinely useful beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain what each category returns or how the aliases map to canonical values.
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 a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('remediation advice and thresholds from the triage runbook'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_ping or get_gateway_telemetry. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource and action are specific enough to make the tool's purpose clear.
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 provides explicit valid categories and aliases, which tells the agent exactly what input values are acceptable. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the domain ('triage runbook') and the category list imply the intended use case clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.