list_diagnostic_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the aggregation basis (groups collected from real devices), the three diagnostic categories, and the meaning of the weight field. This goes beyond the name and schema, although it does not disclose rate limits, sort order, or partial-result behavior.

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 with no wasted words: the first defines what the tool lists and what each object contains, and the second points to the correct follow-up tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully names the return elements: symbolicated signature, weight, and Apple's insight. It also explains that the data comes from real devices and how to drill into detailed logs. Minor gaps such as pagination, sort order, and a complete return-field list keep it from a perfect score.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, including the source of build_id, default and range of limit, and explicit enum values for diagnostic_type. The description adds domain context about the returned data but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource—'List the diagnostic signatures for a build'—and defines what the resource is: groups of similar disk-write, hang, or launch problems with a symbolicated signature, weight, and Apple insight. This clearly differentiates it from related list/get sibling tools like get_diagnostic_logs.

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 provides actionable context by directing the agent to use get_diagnostic_logs when detailed logs are needed, effectively distinguishing summary listing from detailed data. It does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions against the many sibling tools, but the boundary is clear enough for selection.

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