Flarum troubleshooting & support-request guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It transparently describes the tool as a guide covering safe fixes, commands, error interpretation, and report writing, with no hidden side effects. It does not mention limitations (e.g., if forum is inaccessible), but overall disclosure is good.

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 roughly three sentences but packs in audience, purpose, distinguishment, coverage, and usage pairing. It is front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly tighter but remains efficient and clear.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the guide covers. It does so thoroughly (first-aid, info, logs, common errors, how to write a support request) and mentions pairing with another tool. For a guide tool, this is adequately complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (topic) with enum values, and the schema already provides clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal but useful context ('Section to return... or omit for full guide'), so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 the tool is a plain-language guide for forum admins to diagnose broken Flarum forums and prepare support requests. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool flarum_dev, which is for building extensions, ensuring no confusion.

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 advises using the tool 'whenever a user describes a forum problem or asks how to get help' and suggests pairing with a related prompt. It implicitly excludes use for extension development via the sibling distinction, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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