diagnose_error_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool analyzes errors and proposes fixes, but does not disclose processing specifics (e.g., required image formats, handling of multiple errors, or API dependencies). Adequate but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys action, input types, and output. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions 'propose actionable fixes with root cause analysis' to indicate output. It could be more specific about the format or structure of the analysis, but it is largely complete for a diagnostic tool.

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% (both parameters documented). The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond the schema; it only reiterates the general purpose. Baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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: analyzing error screenshots (build errors, runtime errors, stack traces) and proposing actionable fixes with root cause analysis. It specifies the input type and output, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different visual data (e.g., data visualizations, diagrams).

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 when to use: when an error screenshot needs diagnosis and fixes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but could be improved with exclusions.

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