diagnose_task_failure

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads execution traces, compares with similar tasks, and returns suggestions. This gives good insight into internal behavior without contradicting any hidden 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains method, third tells when to use. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers input (task_id), process (trace reading + comparison), and output (fix suggestions). It is complete for a diagnostic tool, though could mention if any prerequisites exist.

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 task_id has schema description 'ID of the failed or stuck task', which is echoed in the description ('failed or stuck task'). Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the task status.

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 'auto-diagnose' and resource 'task failure', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like task_execution_trace which only reads traces. It states the tool identifies failure points and suggests fixes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when a task fails or gets stuck', providing clear guidance on when to invoke. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context implies it is for diagnosis rather than other task operations.

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