diagnose_issue

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

The description implies a safe, read-like behavior (suggesting fixes, not mutating state), but with no annotations provided, it bears the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The lack of explicit behavioral detail is a gap, but it does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 sentence with 6 words, which is concise but arguably underspecified. It lacks structure to highlight key details like the tool's scope or output. While brevity is valued, the sentence could be expanded to include context such as what kind of errors it handles or what the output contains, without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter and an output schema, reducing the need for extensive description of returns. However, given its complexity (diagnosis and fix suggestions), the description does not cover what the response includes (e.g., severity, steps, references) or how error messages should be formatted. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The single required parameter 'error_message' has no schema description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. The description states it diagnoses a specific error, which implies the parameter is an error message string. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it is vague—it does not clarify the expected format, length, or source of the error message. For a single parameter, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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: diagnosing a specific error and suggesting fixes. The action verb 'diagnose' combined with the resource 'specific error' makes the function clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like 'scan_target' or 'run_security_tool', which could also analyze errors, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'scan_target' and 'run_security_tool', an agent would benefit from understanding that this tool is for troubleshooting a known error message, not for security scanning or status checks. The absence of such context reduces its utility for proper tool selection.

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