veto_rca

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose side effects. Description adds behavioral context about combining git blame/log with debugger analysis but does not provide further details like authentication needs or rate limits, which are not expected for a read-only tool.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every word 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?

No output schema, so description must explain the output. It states 'structured root-cause hypothesis with likely introducing commit', which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what to expect. However, lack of format or example output is a minor gap given the complexity of root-cause analysis.

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?

All 3 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds contextual value by explaining that the tool combines git blame/log with debugger analysis, helping the agent understand how parameters like file_hint and project_dir are used in the analysis process.

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?

Description clearly states the tool transforms error/stack trace into a structured root-cause hypothesis with the likely introducing commit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like veto_git_blame (focused only on blame) and veto_explain (general explanation) by specifying its unique combination of git blame/log and debugger analysis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The description implies it is for debugging scenarios but does not compare with similar tools or clarify prerequisites.

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