read_diag_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it reads and parses, but does not explicitly declare it non-destructive or mention side effects. The typical locations hint at the input, but permissions or lock behavior are absent.

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 only two sentences, each adding value: purpose first, then location and output structure. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the input (case_dir meaning and location) and output format (grouped by module/component). It is sufficient for the agent to use without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining the case_dir parameter's role and typical subpaths. This compensates for the bare schema, though it could include the expected format (e.g., full path).

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 action ('Read and parse') and resource ('MOM6 diag_table from a CESM case'), and specifies that it returns enabled diagnostics grouped by module/component. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'suggest_diagnostics' or 'read_mom6_params'.

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 provides context on typical file locations ('case_dir/run/ or case_dir/Buildconf/momconf/'), helping the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, missing full usage guidance.

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