Diagnose Eden Gameplay Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing that the report is bounded (size limits) and shareable, and that partial results are returned if flushing fails. This error behavior and bounded nature are not derivable from annotations alone.

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, front-loading the core collection purpose and then stating partial-failure behavior. The first sentence is dense but each element is informative; no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 6 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is adequate in conveying the report's purpose and failure behavior, but it lacks parameter semantics and alternative-tool guidance. The presence of an output schema is helpful but not visible; overall, the description is not fully sufficient for precise invocation without deeper schema inspection.

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, but it doesn't. While it mentions 'bounded' (hinting at max_bytes/max_events) and lists the focus enum values in prose, it never names or explains any parameter (e.g., max_bytes, session_id, tail_lines, context_lines) or their defaults. The mapping from description to parameters is only implicit.

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 collects a bounded, shareable gameplay failure report with specific components (process context, logs, repeated-message analysis, event context, heuristic hints) for distinct failure categories (game load, patch loop, video loop, missing patch/localization). This distinguishes it from siblings like eden_get_logs or eden_export_diagnostics.

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 implies usage for the listed failure types through its enumeration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when simple logs are enough, use eden_get_logs) or provide exclusions. The failure-type list gives some context, but no clear 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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