diagnose_engine_latency

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

The description declares the tool as a read operation ('[READ]') and explains it correlates signals into a ranked cause and suggests a knob to turn. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It covers the main behavioral aspect (non-destructive analysis) but lacks details on edge cases or failure modes.

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 concise (about 3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a brief explanation and argument description without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly better structured, but effective.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use which variant, and the argument's meaning. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema shows one optional parameter 'target' with only type and default. The description adds meaningful context: 'Inference target name from config; omit for the default.' This clarifies the purpose and usage of the parameter beyond the schema.

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 starts with '[READ][RCA] Rank the probable cause of a latency spike for any serving engine.' It clearly specifies the action (rank), the resource (probable cause of a latency spike), and the scope (any serving engine). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'diagnose_latency_spike (vLLM)' by noting it is engine-agnostic.

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 explicitly names an alternative: 'the engine-agnostic counterpart to diagnose_latency_spike (vLLM).' This helps the agent choose between these two tools. However, it does not provide explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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