diagnose_run

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: resolves uploads, folds retries, returns failed flows with reasons/durations, auto-downloads screenshot paths from the HTML report, and gives a summary. No hidden side effects; the agent understands exactly what the tool does.

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?

Two sentences: the first densely packs the tool's actions and outputs, the second gives usage priority. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (failed flow details, screenshots, summary, next steps). It covers all 4 parameters (described in schema) and provides context for CI debugging. The tool's complexity is low (no enums, no nested objects), and the description is fully adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., defaults for outputDir and includeReport, or the 'most recent match wins' behavior for name). It integrates parameters into the workflow but does not enhance understanding of individual 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 it 'triages one DeviceCloud run' and enumerates specific actions: resolving uploads, folding retries, returning failed flows with details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_uploads or get_results by positioning as the highest-signal tool for debugging a red CI run.

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?

Explicitly advises 'use this first, then read the screenshots and fix the flow or app code', providing clear context for when to use (debugging a failed run). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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