torch_diagnose_binary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Diagnose' suggests a read-only operation and 'get recommended workarounds' indicates a return value, but side effects, failure modes, and behavior when rom_path is omitted are not disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action and outcome are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 minimally adequate for basic invocation: it says what the tool does and the schema covers the optional parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits output format, alternatives, and edge-case behavior that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 single parameter rom_path is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how rom_path affects the diagnosis or the recommended workarounds, so it lands at the high-coverage baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Diagnose the upstream "torch binary" subcommand bug') and a concrete outcome ('get recommended workarounds for extracting raw binary assets'). This distinguishes it from the sibling pack/export tools, though it never explicitly contrasts them. The use of 'upstream' is slightly jargon-heavy, preventing a 5.

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 intended context is implied: use this when encountering the upstream torch binary subcommand bug during raw-binary-asset extraction. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the torch_* siblings.

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