diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose the important trait "Read-only", which prevents an agent from fearing mutation. However, it says nothing about cost/latency across the ten actions, whether results are exhaustive, or what a "problem" result looks like, and the expected_sha256 refusal semantics live only in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: purpose, safety trait, and timing rule come first, and the action list is a useful index. The action list is partially redundant with the enum already present in the schema, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 ten-action, nested-args tool with no output schema, the description omits what a caller receives back (findings format, severity, counts), which is the main gap it should have closed. Purpose and safety are covered adequately, so it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 100%, so the enum values and the args/expected_sha256 contract are already fully documented. The description's action list merely restates the enum rather than adding per-action argument meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Find problems in a timeline") and enumerates the specific problem classes it looks for (gaps, flash frames, duplicates, dead air, beats), which is far more informative than the bare name. It stops short of the 5 because it never contrasts itself with plausible siblings like inspect or find, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Run before editing" gives a clear lifecycle position for the tool, which is genuine usage guidance. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use diagnose vs inspect), so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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