generate_diagnostic_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output structure looks like, or any prerequisites. 'Generates a summary' implies a non-destructive operation, but this is not explicit and details are missing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a modest complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), but the description lacks crucial context such as the structure of the summary, dependencies on other tools (e.g., prior anomaly detection), or when to use it in the operational workflow. An agent would not know what to expect or how to respond to the output.

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 coverage is 50% (time_window_minutes has a description, satellite_id does not), but the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain satellite_id or clarify time_window_minutes beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'satellite anomaly diagnosis' provides context, but no additional semantic value for the parameters.

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 generates a structured satellite anomaly diagnosis summary, with a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('summary'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'detect_novelty_anomaly' and 'isolate_fault_component' by focusing on the summary/report aspect rather than detection or isolation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this should follow anomaly detection, whether it requires telemetry data, or any exclusion criteria. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its place in a workflow.

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