scene_diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it performs diagnostic tests, identifies specific problems (null values, missing lights), provides recommendations, and critically discloses that connectivity tests toggle lights and require user confirmation. This covers safety and mutation aspects well for a diagnostic tool, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key activities. The second sentence provides critical usage guidance for the parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and critical behavioral constraints. The main gap is lack of information about return values or output format, but given the tool's diagnostic nature and no output schema, the description does well to cover purpose, usage, and safety considerations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between test_connectivity and user_confirmed ('REQUIRES user_confirmed=true because it toggles lights'), which provides context beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. However, it doesn't add semantic meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema states.

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: 'Diagnose lights and scenes' with specific activities like testing connectivity, identifying problems, and providing recommendations. It distinguishes from siblings like scene_fix or scene_configure by focusing on diagnostic analysis rather than repair or configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from scene_show_lights or scene_history which might also reveal diagnostic information.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'If test_connectivity=true, REQUIRES user_confirmed=true because it toggles lights.' This clearly states when a parameter is required and why, helping the agent avoid accidental light changes. It also implies this tool is for diagnostic purposes rather than activation or modification (which are handled by siblings like scene_activate or scene_update).

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