diagnose_failure

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates read-only behavior. The description adds context by listing the constraint types used, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, which is efficient but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It conveys the basic purpose but could be better organized to aid quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, parameter guidance, or usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or relationship to the tool's function. This omission leaves the agent unable to correctly populate the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('failed or suspect workflow step'), and mentions the constraints used (MCP schema, workflow, gate, approval). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_operational_integrity or workflow_sentinel.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without usage conditions.

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