diagnose_task_failure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses significant traits: it reads the task's valid memos, compares with similar successful tasks in the same team, returns fix suggestions, and records a task.failure_diagnosed event as a side effect. It also warns that the tool is frozen and no longer developed. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then adds method, side effect, and usage in short sections. Each sentence contributes useful information, and the frozen status is clearly separated. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not wasteful.

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 simple one-parameter input schema, the existence of an output schema, and the lack of annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it explains the diagnostic process, side effect, and when to use it. Minor gaps around error handling or disabled status remain, but the core information is complete.

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?

There is only one required parameter, task_id, and the input schema already documents it at 100% coverage as 'ID of the failed or stuck task'. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the sole parameter.

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+resource ('auto-diagnose why a task failed') and outlines the method: reads memos, compares to successful tasks, and suggests fixes. It clearly tells an agent what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling failure_analysis tool, which could overlap.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when a task fails or gets stuck to quickly understand root cause without manually reading through all memo records. It also notes the tool is frozen but still callable. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are named, so there is room for improvement.

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