diagnose_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only extraction of errors and warnings, but does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, whether it requires a specific run state (e.g., a completed run), or what happens if the log is missing. It also does not describe the output format, despite an output schema existing. The description is too minimal to convey behavioral expectations.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies content, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'bounded errors' means, how max_issues affects behavior, or what the output schema contains. An agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect or how to handle edge cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate because its content is not described.

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 by explaining parameters. It fails to do so: 'run_name' is not described (likely the name of the run to diagnose), and 'max_issues' is not described either, though 'bounded' hints at a limit. The description provides no explicit meaning for either parameter, leaving an agent to guess their roles.

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 a specific action ('Extract') and a specific resource ('bounded errors and critical warnings from a Vivado run log'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like inspect_run by focusing on error extraction rather than general inspection. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with a sibling, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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. It does not mention that this is for diagnosing a run after synthesis/implementation, nor does it suggest that inspect_run or check_build_readiness might be more appropriate for other scenarios. An agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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