troubleshoot_guided_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs analysis, test plan generation, memory integration, and ADR/research suggestion. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether it writes to memory or creates ADR files, nor does it mention required permissions or rate limits. Behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail on mutations.

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 a single, moderately long sentence that tries to pack multiple features. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., tool purpose) and includes jargon like 'intelligent ADR/research suggestion capabilities' that adds verbosity. Could be more concise and structured.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks specifics on return values, operation differences, and how to structure failure JSON. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could better guide agents on expected inputs and outputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra context, e.g., that 'failure' is required for certain operations (though schema marks it optional). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it performs 'structured failure analysis and test plan generation' with memory integration and ADR/research suggestion. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools (e.g., analyze_environment) and generation tools (e.g., generate_research_questions) by being a workflow for troubleshooting. However, the description is somewhat jumbled and could be more precise about the primary function.

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 implies usage when you have structured failure info ('provide JSON failure info to get specific test commands'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_failure or generate_test_plan. No 'when-not' guidance or comparison with siblings is provided.

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