diagnose_from_file

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

Discloses the full pipeline: reads, preprocesses, computes spectrum, runs detectors, returns report. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it provides clear stepwise behavior, though it does not mention read-only nature or potential side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and a line break. Front-loaded with the core action and key qualifiers ('one-shot'), with no unnecessary wording.

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 (10 parameters, many siblings, output schema available), the description covers the essential function and workflow. It does not explain relationship with siblings, but the output schema existence reduces the need for return value description.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, staying at 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?

Clearly states the tool loads a signal from file and runs the full MCSA diagnostic pipeline. Uses specific verb 'diagnose' and resource 'from file', distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_full_diagnosis' which may not involve file loading.

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?

Describes as a one-shot tool ideal for batch/automated workflows, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for partial steps (e.g., inspect_signal_file, preprocess_signal), leaving the agent without clear exclusion guidance.

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