get_troubleshooting_guide

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, rate limits, or that it returns static guidance. For a troubleshooting guide tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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, front-loaded with purpose. First sentence states the action, second sentence gives usage scenarios. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. It doesn't explain the return format, but the name implies a textual guide, which is sufficient for the complexity level.

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 description adds overarching context about when to call, but the parameter 'topic' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with enum values and descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get troubleshooting guidance for Logic Apps issues' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run_details or get_workflow_definition by focusing on guidance and patterns rather than raw data.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call: 'when debugging failed runs, expression errors, connection problems, or to understand platform limitations.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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