diagnose_failed_tx

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's a read-only RPC call that decodes chain data without re-execution. It explains what it decodes (failure codes, rollback strings, partial payments) and what it doesn't (no replay). No contradictions.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core question and then listing features. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 complexity of diagnosing failed transactions and the presence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers all aspects: failure codes, rollback decoding, partial payment trap, and not-found triage. No missing context.

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 50% with basic descriptions for both params. The description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, but the schema already provides adequate info (txHash required, network enum with default).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing plain-English diagnosis for failed transactions using on-chain facts. It lists specific features (decoding hook rollbacks, partial payment trap, not-found triage) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'hook_execution_postmortem'.

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 implies when to use (when a transaction fails or has issues) and explicitly says not to use for re-execution, directing to a sibling tool. However, it could be more explicit about exclusions (e.g., for very new transactions).

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