diagnose_symptoms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool maps symptoms to 'recommended playbooks and example investigation queries', implying a read-only recommendation operation without executing queries. This adds useful context about what the tool does and does not do, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe any side effects.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action ('Map symptom keywords') and then provides specific examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core mapping behavior and gives example inputs, and the 'limit' parameter implies a list of solutions. However, it does not detail the return structure (e.g., how playbooks or queries are represented), which leaves a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid symptom keywords (e.g., 'slow ingestion', 'partition churn', 'memory pressure'), which gives concrete guidance beyond the schema's generic 'symptom phrases'. This extra context helps the agent form correct input values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Map') and clearly identifies the input (symptom keywords) and output (playbooks and example investigation queries). It lists concrete examples like 'slow ingestion' and 'replication lag', making the purpose unambiguous. This differentiates it from siblings like search_solutions and health_check, which focus on searching or health status rather than symptom-to-playbook mapping.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the user has symptoms such as slow ingestion, partition churn, or query latency. It provides a clear context for use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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