start_ticket_diagnosis

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces that by saying it returns guidance rather than performing a mutation. It also discloses the behavioral outcome: it supplies the method, rules, and answer format expected of the agent. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the most important fact ('[READ-ONLY] Call this FIRST') and then specifies the trigger conditions and return content. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only entry-point tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to invoke it. It explains what the tool returns and the expected answer format, which is all the agent needs before calling.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Call this FIRST'), a clear resource (support ticket / blocked user diagnosis), and the value returned (diagnosis method, rules, expected answer format). It distinguishes itself from the many getters and diagnose_* siblings by positioning itself as the mandatory entry point.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: first, when the user shares a support ticket or asks to debug a blocked user. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the 'FIRST' directive and the specific trigger conditions provide strong usage guidance.

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