stl_support_repro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by saying that when the answer is empty it also returns why, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 succinct, using only two sentences plus the parameter list. It avoids fluff and gets directly to the tool's purpose and the empty-result behavior.

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?

The description is too thin for a tool with five parameters and an output schema. It does not document the parameters, the output shape, or how the historical reconstruction actually works. The support use case is clear, but the missing parameter and output information leaves significant gaps.

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 schema provides zero parameter descriptions and the description does not explain the five parameters. In particular, the difference between 'snapshot' and 'rt_snapshot', the meaning of 'window_minutes', and the expected format for 'at' are all left undefined. With only parameter names and defaults, an agent cannot reliably choose and fill the arguments.

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: reconstruct what the app should have shown at a stop and instant. The opening sentence is specific about the verb, resource, and temporal scope, and the example scenario makes it easy to understand without needing the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete scenario ('stop 15111 showed nothing at 11:47 last Tuesday') and notes it works without a device or waiting for the time to pass. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, relying on the reader to infer the niche.

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