diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly flags the tool as read-only and limits its behavior to the listed detection/validation actions. It does not disclose output format or per-action side-effect nuances, but for a no-annotation tool the core non-mutating behavior is clearly stated.

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 purpose, then usage, then a compact action list, with no filler. The action list is long but all entries are load-bearing for action selection, and the whole text remains scannable.

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?

The definition is adequate for a read-only diagnostic tool: purpose, read-only behavior, and action vocabulary are present. However, the 10 actions are heterogeneous and have no per-action argument breakdown or output description, so an agent may need supplemental information to invoke some actions with confidence.

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 covers both parameters fully, and the description's action list mirrors the enum. It adds no per-action argument semantics beyond the schema's example, so the description earns the baseline score of 3 rather than extra credit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find problems in a timeline') and enumerates concrete problem types and actions, so the tool's diagnostic role is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like inspect or find, but the action vocabulary makes the intended scope fairly unambiguous.

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?

'Read-only. Run before editing.' gives a clear temporal usage rule and implies it is a pre-edit analysis step rather than a mutation. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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