pixera_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape ('-> cause + fix') and implies a read-only diagnostic, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether it inspects live system state, requires an active connection, or has any side effects on the project.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, using an arrow to front-load the transformation from input to output. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description supplies the essential framing plus example inputs. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the overlapping validate_* siblings rather than any missing invocation detail.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving example symptom strings, clarifying that this is free-text symptom input rather than an ID or enum. However, it does not specify the expected format, accepted vocabulary, or whether arbitrary phrasing is matched.

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?

States a specific verb (diagnose) and resource (projection-mapping symptom), and the concrete examples 'visible seam' and 'black output' make the scope unambiguous. It is distinguishable from the recommend_* and set_* siblings, but it does not explicitly separate itself from the validate_* family (e.g. pixera_validate_softedge), which could plausibly address the same 'visible seam' symptom.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples — you call it when you observe a symptom like a seam or black output — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to reach for this versus the many validate_* tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must be loaded first).

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