tandem_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that live=true contacts a provider, may incur a charge, defaults to local state, returns a task_id when still running, and that a separate CLI process cannot certify the push receipt. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and operational constraints in the next three. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema presumably covers return values, and the description covers the core behavior and safety considerations. However, the missing semantics for three parameters and lack of routing among sibling tools leave the description incomplete for a tool with this many controls.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains live and task_id, but wait_seconds, timeout_seconds, and expected_project are left undocumented. An agent cannot fully understand how to set or interpret these parameters from the description alone.

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 starts with 'Diagnose this client session's project, OMP execution, actual model and delivery,' which names a specific action and target. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like tandem_review or tandem_findings.

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 clearly explains when to use live=true versus the default local check, and instructs the agent to inspect an existing task_id instead of starting another check. It provides useful context but does not name alternative sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond live checks.

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