diagnose_athena_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the fetch is read-only and that the tool performs two phases (fetch failure reason, then diagnose). It does not explain what 'diagnose' actually does, whether it invokes an LLM or external service, what permissions are required, or what happens when the query succeeded and no failure reason exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and read-only qualifier all appear immediately.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the diagnosis output and the use_llm switch, but mentions neither. An agent cannot predict the response shape or the cost implications of enabling LLM diagnosis.

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 and it does not: query_execution_id is only implied by the resource name, and the use_llm flag — which materially changes behavior and likely cost — is never mentioned. This is a significant unexplained parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetching an Athena query execution's failure reason and diagnosing it — which is clearly distinct from siblings like diagnose_glue_job_run or diagnose_mwaa_environment. It stops short of naming siblings or explaining how the 'diagnose' step differs from list_failure_patterns.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this should be called only after a query has failed, how it relates to list_failure_patterns, or whether diagnose_incident is the broader alternative. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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