coinbase_diagnose_transport

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is passive, attaches before navigation, observes multiple transport types, and writes a verdict. The explicit claim 'Never clicks or opens a Coinbase socket' adds safety assurance. However, it omits details about side effects like file creation or network activity, preventing a perfect score.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a brief list of parameters or a more structured format to improve scanability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (observing multiple transports, writing output) and no output schema, the description fails to explain the format of the verdict or network map, the tool's lifecycle (e.g., how duration works), or how the output is stored (outputRoot parameter). This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the four parameters (debugUrl, durationMs, outputRoot, urlContains). The agent receives no guidance on parameter formats, defaults, or how they affect behavior, making it difficult to invoke correctly. This is a critical gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'Passive transport diagnostic for Coinbase real-time data' and specifies the actions: attaches before navigation, observes transports, writes a verdict. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from interactive tools by stating 'Never clicks or opens a Coinbase socket', making its purpose highly specific and differentiated from siblings like chrome_click or coinbase_place_order.

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 implies this tool is for passive diagnostic scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like coinbase_market_stream or coinbase_confirm_live. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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