debug_diagnose_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates the tool returns diagnoses but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether it can modify files (the 'drives repair loops' phrase hints at mutation but is ambiguous), or any prerequisites like file access. This is a moderate description, lacking deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences, but the first sentence is not tool-specific and reads as a generic system description. The core functional statement is in the second sentence, which is reasonably concise. The opening wastes space on peripheral context, reducing overall clarity and front-loading effectiveness.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not severely lacking. It explains the input (transcript + files) and output (diagnoses) at a high level. However, it does not describe the output format or how the input parameters interplay (e.g., path vs files vs data precedence), which an agent might need to call correctly. The schema covers parameter meaning, but the overall usage context is thin.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'transcript JSON plus project files,' which maps to the transcript and files/path parameters but does not clarify the distinction between path vs files vs data. It does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions, consistent with the baseline.

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 function: 'Given transcript JSON plus project files, returns correlated ABL file/line diagnoses.' It mentions it's an alias for debug_why_transcript_failed, which helps identify it among siblings. However, the lead-in 'Arch validates packages, inspects compiler-visible models, and drives repair loops' is vague and not directly specific to this tool, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the alias, implying equivalence with debug_why_transcript_failed, but does not state when to choose this over other debug_* siblings like debug_diagnose or debug_explain_decision. No exclusions or clear use-case context is given.

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