Diagnose Failure

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

The annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description does not need to repeat that. However, aside from implying a read operation, the description adds no other behavioral context (e.g., expected outcomes, side effects, or performance characteristics), which would be valuable given the lack of output 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key verb and object. However, it sacrifices some detail for brevity, which is acceptable but not optimal given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the diagnostic output, parameter usage, or constraints, leaving a significant knowledge gap for the agent.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 13 parameters. It only vaguely references 'MCP schema, workflow, gate, and approval constraints' without linking to specific params, leaving all parameters entirely undocumented.

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 uses the verb 'diagnose' and identifies the resource as a 'failed or suspect workflow step', which gives a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'verify_claim' or 'suggest_fix', missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools such as 'detect_noop' or 'get_reliability_rules'.

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