diagnose_deployment_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Diagnoses' without indicating whether the tool is read-only, what side effects might occur, what the output format is, or any prerequisites (e.g., must provide a sufficiently detailed log). The description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence that immediately defines the verb and the scope. It lists specific issue types without any filler or repetition. This is both efficient and well-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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's purpose, but because there is no output schema, it does not hint at the return value or diagnostic format. It also does not mention any constraints like the need for specific error log content. For a diagnostic tool that likely returns analysis/fixes, this is a notable gap, though the problem areas are clearly enumerated.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning about them. It does list the types of issues, which loosely ties to the error_log content, but it does not elaborate on parameter format, importance, or interplay. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Diagnoses') and clearly enumerates the distinct problem categories it covers (deployment failures, container logs, CORS issues, ISR cache limits, build errors, memory leaks). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like 'generate_docker_setup' or 'get_deployment_checklist', which serve different purposes. The specificity leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you have X' or mention alternatives, the enumerate list of diagnosis targets provides clear context. An agent can infer that this tool is appropriate when encountering deployment or runtime issues. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or references to sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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