troubleshoot_client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing exactly what the analysis examines: connection history, signal quality, AP associations, roaming events, and potential issues. It also reinforces the read-only nature in plain language. Minor gap: no mention of what the output looks like, but the behavioral scope is well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the read-only note and sibling routing, then argument details. Every section earns its place. The Args block is mildly redundant with the schema, but the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, behavior, alternative routing, and parameters. The one gap is that it never hints at what the analysis returns (a report? a diagnosis list?), which would matter to an agent since no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The Args section in the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding new semantics. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Run a deep-dive troubleshooting analysis for one specific client') and explicitly differentiates from the two most relevant siblings: get_client_experience_report (site-wide overview) and get_client_details (raw record without analysis). An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for and what it is not.

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 names alternatives explicitly and gives the selection condition: use get_client_experience_report for site-wide overview, or get_client_details for a raw record without analysis. It also states the scope constraint ('one specific client') upfront, so the agent knows not to reach for this when a broader view is needed.

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