troubleshoot_guided_workflow

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses memory integration for session tracking and ADR/research suggestions, but does not detail side effects like data persistence or required permissions. Still, it provides a reasonable picture of behavior.

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 run-on sentence cramming multiple features (memory integration, ADR suggestion, research generation). It lacks structure and clarity, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 high complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description inadequately explains what the tool returns or how outputs are structured. It mentions 'get specific test commands' but is vague about the overall workflow and results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond 'provide JSON failure info', which is already evident from the schema. It does not add extra semantic value.

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's purpose: structured failure analysis, test plan generation, and memory integration. It specifies the action (analyze and generate) and resource (failure info), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on ADR management or content masking.

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 when to use: when you have a JSON failure and need test commands. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but among siblings this tool is unique for troubleshooting workflows.

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